Islam

I think that the gap between the time of Jesus and the arrival of Mohammed some half a millennium later makes it rather difficult to take seriously the claims made about where the early Church 'got their facts wrong'.
I can find little of merit in Islam and nothing which can compare to the incredibly reliable Gospel accounts.
Even so, although militant Islam should perhaps have us greatly concerned, we must remember as Christians that it is our duty to love these people as much as we do any others. I have met and enjoyed the company of many Moslems who are so often easy to respect simply as people.

Euthanasia

If you believe that human life is 'sacred' you will automatically be opposed to mercy killing. Nonetheless, I feel that the Scriptures have little to say on a topic where 'science has clearly moved the goalposts'.
Do we believe that extreme suffering is 'good for the soul'? Do we believe that Jesus would say that to a victim? Just how many times was there such a meeting reported during Jesus's earthly ministry?
Is it correct that God decides the time of the ending of every life? If the life of the one 'who sheds the blood of man and who should have his blood shed by man' (Gen. 9) is not obviously within God's timing, then what of the sufferer at the end of his/her earthly span?
Just how do you best 'love your neighbour'? - There are two opposing views.
Euthanasia has practical dangers.
There will not be many times when I become equivocal on this Blog but euthanasia is an area where I must admit - I just don't know!

Marriage

My pal and I meet on a Friday and gripe about what is wrong with the world. We have it all perfectly sussed and most of the time we can see the solutions but can see no way our 'liberal elite' politicians will implement them.
The dissolution of the state of marriage is clearly one of the greatest reasons why we are in such a social decline. ALL the three major parties support policies which undermine marriage and thence, society.
Support MUST be withdrawn from all ideas which undermine this 'building block' of society. Taxation must support marriage. 'No fault' divorces must be checked. 'Single-motherhood-as-a-career' must be abolished.
Broken and half made families are slowly but surely wrecking society. As Christians we MUST demand the return of marriage as a central pivot of political thinking.

Da Vinci Code

This does not merit comment as its historical base is not merely flawed but non existent.
Probably originating from the pratting about of various Knights Templar or Knights of St John after a good booze up. Laughable - and YES I would debate it, even with the 'mighty' Dan Brown himself.
Serious test. "Seek and you will find!" - I tried it AND it worked. Why do people do anything to avoid the truth of the Scriptures?
I am no fan of the RC Church but they have not asked for this.
The trouble is that there are always the simple-minded who will fall for any rubbish put in front of them and that is why churches must oppose this. There are quite enough things to lead people away from spiritual seeking already.
Does anybody remember when the BBC carved up that other charlatan, ErichVon Daniken and his 'Chariots of the Gods' ? - Those who fell for that must have ended up feeling pretty stupid and his work was infinitely superior to this!

Abortion

Abortion is basically not permissible. The scriptures are clear. Check Psalm 94 for just one pertinent example. It is hard to argue for even post rape. Today the 'morning after pill' is a morally ambivalent area - but perhaps lesser evils could come into play in such extreme circumstances. As for terminating, or rather exterminating the potentially handicapped, it just fills me with total revulsion. To kill for convenience sake is just disgusting.
You do not need to be a Christian to find euphemistically labelled terminations, repellant. All you need to do is see any of the films in the mould of 'The Silent Scream'. These are not faked in any way nor are they emotive. The pictures simply speak for themselves. It is brutal and impossible to argue that the child does not know what is going on when you can see it attempting to vainly flee the abortionists instruments in the middle of the sick procedure.
How strange some of the most agitated supporters of unborn child murder are the same people who tell us Capital Punishment is morally wrong.
Evil is when right and wrong are reversed. Capital Punishment targets the guilty and abortion the innocent. Surely, every member of the human race can distinguish? - But no! Lefties and feminists cannot. Simply evil.

Creationists win by default

Leading evolutionary paleontologist Dr Paul Willis was 'thrashed' in public debate by the creationist Dr Carl Wieland. I have personally seen Ken Ham 'destroy' three famous evolutionists in one go and have seen anti-evolutionary geologist/geneticist John Mackay, win similar debates in Canada, Liverpool on video and live in the Sheffield University Debating Society. Evolution's own, Richard Dawkins, refuses to debate against reputable scientists ("lending credibility to creationists" is the limp excuse.) Attenborough is the same. I wonder why? If their theory is so proven, surely a debate on TV should silence these creationists for all time.Well, shouldn't it?

This IS ironic!

May the EU be ever praised.
The EU is mighty and awesome in its benevolence.
May the prophets Blair, Chirac and Prodi be granted the worship of the peoples.
May the nations rise and proclaim its greatness.
Its splendour enthralls.
Great indeed are its powers and its might goes from strength to strength.
It is all-knowing, all-seeing, all-worthy.
May its name be blessed.
The EU gives and the EU takes away - may its initials be revered. Glory unto the EU.
Make obeisance before it.
Bend the knee Oh ye once proud peoples.
Prostrate yourselves before it.
Great is the EU. Great is the EU. Selah.

Evolutionary fantasy.

Frog toPrince = fairy tale. Molecule to man = evolution. Hmm.
Big Bang - "In the beginning there was nothing which then exploded." Hmm.
Evolution. "Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas which, with enough time, turns into people." Hmm.
I think I'll have another look at Genesis - it is far less like fantasy!

John Sentamu

I doubt that we would always agree politically but a big thankyou to John Sentamu that he has brought a hint of fresh air into the C of E!

No to politically correct policies.

Society can never be fair whilst the politically correct insist upon 'equality of outcome' not simple 'equality of opportunity'.
The so-called Positive Action Leadership Programme in the Police Force is one disgraceful example. Christians really should not be supportive of 'Marxism in disguise'.
It only breeds resentment - (I know I've been that victim) - by promoting the less able in place of the more able. Or perhaps, by purest coincidence, the target group will contain, all the talent. Somehow I doubt it!

No to £8 billion.

Christians want to see the weak helped. Christians would be delighted to learn that if £8 billion could solve educational problems in Africa, our country is sending this.
BUT, we all know that this will just be handed over blindly to corrupt governments to help officials feather their Swiss bank accounts. NO! If it is to be spent it must go through responsible charities or not at all.

Bishop snubbed in Kenya

I see the Bishop of Chelmsford is reported as having been snubbed by many Kenyans.
With such a friendly people, how can this be? - Well, the good bishop supports 'Gay rights' in the Church.
Perhaps somebody could have warned the poor man that he was going to be meeting Christians - I don't suppose he gets to see too many in the circles in which he moves.

Portray Christians HONESTLY on TV!

I am oh so fed up of Christians in TV programmes. We all know that there is a small % of cranks and hypocrites in the Church but WHY are these the only ones ever portrayed in: soaps, comedies, films and dramas?
At the same time there is virtually ALWAYS positive portrayals of: lefties, homosexuals, feminists and muslims.
Not very balanced, eh?

John Mackay - letter to Guardian and Independent.

Following the recent 'hatchet job' on John Mackay the geologist, geneticist, coal formation expert and well-known creationist, it would be interesting to see whether this newspaper, is in future, prepared to be a little even-handed.
I make no claims for creationism in this letter but I am always certain that when the babbling hordes try to silence somebody without open debate, the only possible conclusion is that there is something to hide.
There is a very simple solution as to whether Mr Mackay is talking gibberish or not. Instead of him periodically defeating lesser-famed evolutionists in public debate, why does this paper not sponsor a debate between him and say, Professor Dawkins? If necessary this could be resticted to purely scientific arguments.
Surely then, these irritating creationists could be utterly destroyed in the public eye once and for all.
I should like to see a two hour debate on prime time TV with three leading evolutionary scientists against three creationist scientists. Who could reasonably object?
I am sure that no convinced evolutionist could possibly argue that 'this would simply lend credibility to creationists' as the temptation to be able to destroy completely the antediluvian arguments, once and for all, ought to be irresistible

Who can Christians vote for?

A tough question? On moral grounds as well as incompetence and having no love of democracy, both major parties seem excluded. The Greens share the same leftie attitudes as the Lib Dems.
Respect and BNP are evil. It only leaves UKIP - and they are far from perfect. One good thing though, they do have a high percentage of members who are practising evangelicals with the added benefit of total opposition to that exercise in evil called the EU.
They try to be democratic and do not tell voters what they must want - like all the others. They have won me over.

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins is arrogantly anti Christian and anti God. He is one of the proponents of the idea that 'science has disproved the Bible'.
If we put to one side the fact that I can name a dozen scientists of equal qualification to the good professor who totally reject the evolutionary hypothesis AND across a wide variety of scientific disciplines - we can consider the real travesty.
HE WILL NOT DEBATE. So like Attenborough and, I believe Professor Jones too, he will not defend his beliefs. "It only lends credibility to creationists" is the feeble response.
This blog reveals the TRUTH. He is absolutely terrified. He does not want to risk being caught out again. I have him at home on video being interviewed by a creationist who asked, what should have beena fantastically easy question for an evolutionary geneticist, "Please give one example of NEW genetic information." His eyes opened wide , terror ran over his face, his mouth opened and closed like a fish out of water, there was a really long period of saying nothing, total embarrassment and finally, he answered a different question. He sure convinced me of the depth of his knowledge and expertise!
He is also scared of John Mackay the Aussie Geologist and degree geneticist who has a habit of beating in debate, the few evolutionists prepared to put their heads above the parapet. Dawkins was invited to the debate at Sheffield University by the students' Debating Society last November when Mackay proposed "This house believes evolution is a myth."
The students reported thatDawkins did not even give the courtesy of a reply. Every major evolutionist in UK universities was approached and all refused bar Dr Ross of Lincoln who valiantly fell as another sacrificial victim to the genial Queenslander.
I was there. I saw it. The creationist won hands down in a largely scientific debate.
Funny how Dawkins, The Guardian and Independent are all right up there attacking the academies which dare to teach creationism. Until this evolutionary rubbish has been fully tested in public, televised debate, evolution should be withdrawn from school curricula.
Until recently, I had NO idea just how thin the so-called evidence for evolution actually is. Shame on the Bishop of Oxford for his seemingly unqualified support forDawkins.

Immigration?

I shall not consider the whole issue here but must point out that there is no obligation to wreck your country just because the left deem it to be worthwhile.
We have UN obligations to take refugees from neighbouring countries. This is reasonable. When Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled Herod, they did just this and went to Egypt next door. We need to take refugees from the Irish Republic if destitute and persecuted. Same applies arguably to France , Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway. That is it.
Getting off lightly, I hear you say? - Okay, as an extra sign of our charity, how about sending donations to those countries which are bordering genuine tragedy? This deals with our own UN obligations on a political level and our obligations as Christians.

Should Christians oppose wealth?

Wealth is anthema to the average leftie but as my dear old Dad once said, "Behind every leftwinger there is a capitalist trying to get out." Not wrong there, was he Mr Prescott? The left are geared to spending other people's money and that means yours and mine - not just that of the rich. Even then, why should society have the right to arbitrarily take the wealth off anybody. At what point does taxation just become mere theft?
Consider Inheritance Tax. Purest evil. Here is the principle: "Somebody just died in your family? Good. Give us a large chunk of your family's cash which has already been taxed."
Beyond belief BUT the leftie wants to work from a base of: jealousy, envy, class hatred, hatred of anybody who has 50p more than they have. Doesn't hang too well with Christian principles does it?
What if you have got money? The Jews believed that wealth was a sign of God's blessing. They were quite surprised when Jesus talked of it being 'harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.' Jesus was speaking of wealth as a 'barrier to God' - certainly in this story of the Rich Young Ruler who would not give up his wealth it was the case. We all have these barriers and quite often it is 'the LOVE of money whichcauses them'. Jesus warns of wealth abused in the parables of the 'Rich Fool' and 'The Rich Man and Lazarus.'
Trouble is that today, we are ALL wealthy in a nation like ours. We are those 'rich fools'. We own more than the rich of whom Jesus spoke could have even imagined. We have responsibilities before God for vthe Third World.
Start getting generous. Send a donation which HURTS to TearFund or Christian Aid TODAY.

Is homosexuality Christian, yes or no?

We have several clues in the scriptures, principally that homosexuality is condemned in both Old and New Testaments as sinful.
Clearly, the scriptures teach that sex is a vital part of God's plan and only works in a marriage - which for those who do not know, is only for one man, one wife.
How can a liberal Church conclude 'it's okay really, then?' Easy. They do it by undermining the Scriptures. If God is too pathetic to be able to leave us a reasonably reliable guide, surely He should be abandoned altogether? God cannot be used and manipulated into supporting your own personal viewpoint! Total hypocrisy. Disagree? - Okay, then. What about the so-called 'Gay Christian Movement?'
How many other biblical sins do you know which are treated in this way? Have you heard of the other groupings? - 'Shoplifters for Christ' perhaps, or 'Christian murderers association'?
No? - 'Adulterers for Jesus' perhaps?
Absurd, isn't it? You see, Christianity is all about repenting sins and not wallowing in them. A definition of 'evil' is when 'right is classed as wrong and wrong classed as right.' So how does the liberal church bypass its hypocrisy? It doesn't. It can't. It wallows. It's evil.
A church which encourages ministers when 'gay' is dragging us towards direct confrontation with God.
Should we be 'anti gay'? - Of course not. Christians are not supposed to be 'anti fellow human beings' BUT we are obliged to fight perverse trends; corruption of God's Church in particular.

Christianity does not support the feckless!

What do socialism and the liberal church have in common? - They are both prepared to support those who milk the rest of us dry and parasite off the community.
"If a man will not work - LET HIM NOT EAT!" - thus said the Apostle Paul. Spot on bro'!
Christians should support the needy - it is our duty and privilege but we are never required to help those who will not help themselves.
Almost 60% of our earnings disappear in taxes of varied sorts and are wasted by councils and governments.

Was Jesus anti Death Penalty?

The idea that Capital Punishment for murder is 'unchristian' was occasionally mooted by believers in the 19th Century, but in those days, people tended to take an overview of the scriptures and the bulk of Christians then would have been amazed to see attitudes displayed today.
The truth that "Jesus was all about compassion and love" is thrown at people like a weapon in a vacuum and I have to ask, "What of righteousness?" - Did Jesus have nothing to say on such matters?
The story of the 'Adulterous Woman' is misused and frequently mistaught from pulpits. Firstly, if Jesus simply let this woman off, then by extrapolation, all criminals must be let off - an absurdity.
Secondly, had she indeed committed adultery? We only have the word of those setting the trap.
Thirdly, when Jesus told her to "sin no more", what was the sin? Was it adultery or being involved in the trap? He would not 'condemn' her beyond the demands of the Law.
Fourthly, the trap was most emphatically not a mere test of Jesus' compassion. It was an issue of Jewish Law against Roman - a dangerous snare.
Finally, we must remember that in this case Jesus did actually endorse the execution, thus satisfying the Law. The 'accusers' were displaying hypocrisy; they were not seeking justice and his retort to them not only exposed this but meant that there would be no upset of the Roman authorities and of course, no stoning.
Why do some Christians have a problem, here? The OT shows punishment must be balanced - the Lex Talionis. Jesus requires forgiveness in the NT. Are these mutually exclusive? - Hardly. The OT shows society must properly punish crime, God punishes sin. The NT shows how the individual must act within society - forgiveness.
With some 15,000 extra murder victims in the period since 1964 levels, it is a question which must be asked and simplistic approaches to Scripture in order to justify 'modern niceness' must be challenged.