Reverend blasts government's gay marriage plans (From Bucks Free Press)

Here we go again - just check out Leviticus` list of "transgressions" for which "sinful" man should be punished by extreme violence or indeed killed. I assume the Reverend also supports these punishments, as he has chosen to worship Jahweh, the vengeful and judgemental desert-god ?

This priest needs to ask himself why the churches are empty. The clergy are so out of touch with reality they are no longer relevant in society.

What a very ignorant and stupid man.
If this is his idea of Christianity then hooray for paganism!

Penn Free Methodist Church
You have to question the word FREE at this church. Perhaps the Rev. Simpson should think about removing it. I hope more people turn their backs on this type of rubbish.

I started losing interest in Christianity when they stopped allowing you to stone your children to death for being disobedient.

When is the church going to admit there is no connection between human genetics and 'religion' and also _man invented marriage.

What an objectional bigoted person, The likes of him give Christianity a bad name.

The Reverend will no doubt see all the comments posted above as proof of Satan`s wiles and influence. There`s an Indian saying: "You`ll never win an argument with a fool" .

Iolo ap-gwynhefin wrote:
This priest needs to ask himself why the churches are empty. The clergy are so out of touch with reality they are no longer relevant in society.

What is the English for 'Iolo ap-gwynhefin'? (Serious question from non-Welsh speaker.)

Voyeur wrote:
I started losing interest in Christianity when they stopped allowing you to stone your children to death for being disobedient.

And of course it can't be denied that the church has got VERY slack on people who eat shellfish see Leviticus 11:12 ‘Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you.’

BOOKERite wrote:
What an objectional bigoted person, The likes of him give Christianity a bad name.

I think he should be thrown to the lions!

I see the Reverend Simpson is ignoring Leviticus 19:27 ‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.’

If the Reverend does not "wish to be accused of being homophobic" perhaps he should refrain from expressing views which inexorably brand him as thus?

One can have a lot of fun with all the proscriptions in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, but ultimately, all that the evangelicals do it take literal quotations out of any cultural context and use them to justify whatever piece of bigotry they are currently obsessed with.

All pretty futile really. Life is short, get on and enjoy it.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
One can have a lot of fun with all the proscriptions in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, but ultimately, all that the evangelicals do it take literal quotations out of any cultural context and use them to justify whatever piece of bigotry they are currently obsessed with.

All pretty futile really. Life is short, get on and enjoy it.

Yeah - I intend to eat some shellfish tomorrow and possibly wear a garment with two different types of fibre.

It IS good fun looking up silly bits from the Bible – as Shakespeare said the Devil can quote scripture to suit his own purpose – there a number of interesting ones at http://www.bspcn.com
/2009/06/23/11-thing
s-the-bible-bans-but
-you-do-anyway/

I suspect most contemporary clothing is made with mixed fibres.

I was surprised to see that if the Queen is committed to upholding the law of God etc., etc. then she must be quite upset to know I ate some rabbit quite recently.

I found the stuff about haircuts a bit ambiguous as its varies between which translation of the bible you refer to. The web site I was looking at provided a number of alternatives. Perhaps Rev Simpson could enlighten us on this.

If most contemporary clothing is made with mixed fibres then we're all doomed.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
One can have a lot of fun with all the proscriptions in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, but ultimately, all that the evangelicals do it take literal quotations out of any cultural context and use them to justify whatever piece of bigotry they are currently obsessed with.

All pretty futile really. Life is short, get on and enjoy it.

Yeah - I intend to eat some shellfish tomorrow and possibly wear a garment with two different types of fibre.

I don't think I'm going to get tattooed though.

The Reverend's flock will voice any concerns they have about their Reverend's view. Until then, this person has the right to state his reasons for opposing pending government legislation. Lest the government should say, that it was a widely held view by the general public and therefore the legislation was passed, unopposed.
Surely, this is the way things are done, are they not?

rushma wrote:
The Reverend's flock will voice any concerns they have about their Reverend's view. Until then, this person has the right to state his reasons for opposing pending government legislation. Lest the government should say, that it was a widely held view by the general public and therefore the legislation was passed, unopposed.
Surely, this is the way things are done, are they not?

Of course he is, but if he does it in a way that assumes everyone (or most people) share his oddly bigoted view of the world then he should expect people to make fun of him. We are as free to do this as he is to express his views.

I'm sure he takes great pleasure in turning the other cheek.

rushma wrote:
The Reverend's flock will voice any concerns they have about their Reverend's view. Until then, this person has the right to state his reasons for opposing pending government legislation. Lest the government should say, that it was a widely held view by the general public and therefore the legislation was passed, unopposed.
Surely, this is the way things are done, are they not?

Surely we are voicing our concerns over his publicly-expressed views. One recalls the words of William Cobbett: "When once comes forward as a candidate for public admiration, esteem or compassion for his opinions, his principles, his motives, every act of his life, public or private, becomes the fair subject of public discussion." Elsewhere on this site the Reverend Simpson says: ‘Yours in a spirit of courtesy towards the many who will doubtless disagree.’ He surely expected this reaction and there is nothing personal against the Reverend – merely his opinions.

I am just wondering what is the significance of Mother's day.

It commemorates mothers.

Homosexual bonding is explicable in Darwinian evolutionary terms and if God didn’t want gays then why does he make them? I used to know a most irritating gay man in the US bible belt twelve years ago who, I understood, was not willing to take a partner because of his Christian beliefs (I looked him up on Facebook last year and he looked the same except twelve years older with a small beard and a silly smile – still no mention of a partner though). Apparently one in thirteen men is gay (hence the joke about ‘statistics show there are always two queers on the pitch in a rugby match’). A lot of the world religions seem to agree that God made us and presumably intended us to reproduce by means of SEX ! but nonetheless God has ALL KINDS of hang ups about SEX! People DON’T choose their sexuality – the arrival of girls in my consciousness many years ago was not accompanied by thoughts about did I want to do it with her brother instead – I was born heterosexual. I know God is supposed to move in a mysterious way but why did He make gays in that case?

rushma wrote:
I am just wondering what is the significance of Mother's day.

(Better ask a Mummy's boy.)

When the proposed legislation is passed, the sanctity of marriage will need to have a different definition.

Let he/she who is not a bigot cast the first stone (kilogram ?)
.
We are all bigots of one kind or another. Those that say they are not are just hypocrites.
.
The remainder who say they are not either are politicians or religious fanatics.
.
But that's only my humble opinion. And I am, I admit, very humble - with just cause too.
.
And the Bible states the meek shall inherit the Earth. And a right mess you lot are making of it. If you don't mind me (humbly) saying so.
.
This man needs your help - not your barbed criticisms, which perversely (I humbly predict) will only strengthen his current views.
.
Thank You - Yours , ever so humbly.
PS I too am a homo (sapiens) - like most of you - but not always very sapiens.

* RESPECTED rural south Bucks clergyman, middle aged, disquieting pink tie n'
matching hank, thick wrists, GSOH, rails against Sodom and Gomorrah, needs suede shoes / sister soles. All serious offers considered. PO Box Penn.

rushma wrote:
When the proposed legislation is passed, the sanctity of marriage will need to have a different definition.

I am sure the things that are most important to you will continue safely - a lot of people feel the same way and value the same things as you - I don't think respect for others is a threat to the majority of people like yourself - cheer up Dear Lady ('Rushma' looks like a woman's name.)

I think the pink tie and handkie really suits him

Mr Simpson displays the awful intolerance and bigotry which some church people have. No wonder the church is so off-putting to so many. Some even discriminate against women bishops, priests etc too.

Mr Simpson displays the awful intolerance and bigotry which some church people have. No wonder the church is so off-putting to so many. Some even discriminate against women bishops, priests etc too.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

rushma wrote:
When the proposed legislation is passed, the sanctity of marriage will need to have a different definition.

I am sure the things that are most important to you will continue safely - a lot of people feel the same way and value the same things as you - I don't think respect for others is a threat to the majority of people like yourself - cheer up Dear Lady ('Rushma' looks like a woman's name.)

You are right.

This legislation will not change the longstanding virtues. The sanctity of marriage is global, for billions, including Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists and Jews alike.

The good Reverend may be putting his views according to his understanding of Christianity, but the issue of the proposed legislation is more about the meaning of marriage.

Marriage is a legal status, so cannot be dictated by the church - it really is none of their business.

I'm glad there are laws now that protect people against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and so on. Mr Simpson and his like should be prosecuted for inciting homophobia.

Many argue that the Bible is inconsistent and unreliable, because in the book of Leviticus there are verses prohibiting the eating of shellfish and the making of garments from mixed fibres, activities which are now regarded as perfectly legitimate.

Such an argument, however, is a failure to distinguish between God’s moral law, which is for all time, and certain civil, dietary and ceremonial laws, which were for the limited period of Israel’s existence as an earthly theocracy prior to the coming of Christ.

These latter laws were of real value to Old Testament Israel, and their purpose was to give the people a separate status from the surrounding idolatrous nations. Now, however, they have been set aside with the coming of Christ’s kingdom, which is a spiritual kingdom, and which comprises people out of all nations.

During World War 2 there was a special law preventing the use of petrol for private cars. This law was essential for preserving limited fuel supplies, and even now it teaches us the principle of foregoing personal convenience for the higher good. Because certain laws of the land for specific situations have now been set aside, it does not mean that all the laws which remain can be ignored.

Yes, the temporary civil laws of the Old Testament re shellfish and mixed fibres are no longer in force, but they still teach us important principles, firstly, the need to obey God, because He in His wisdom decrees a thing, and, secondly, the practical fact that toxins readily deposit themselves in shellfish, and that mixed fibres in hot climates have a tendency to produce static electricity.

The Ten Commandments, however, and all the rest of God’s moral law, have never been set aside, but were re-affirmed by Christ during his earthly ministry. Indeed, the moral law is the subject of much of the Sermon on the Mount. The New Testament accordingly contains various references to the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Going back to Leviticus, in chapters 18 & 19, where the sinfulness of homosexuality is made clear, there is also a condemnation of incest, adultery, prostitution, ****, perjury, stealing, mistreating the handicapped, ignoring the poor, dishonouring the elderly and hating one’s neighbour. We courteously ask our opponents, Is it likely that the Bible is right in all of these moral areas, yet wrong on the one matter of homosexuality?

Bible-believing Christians acknowledge themselves to be undeserving sinners. Yet by God’s grace, upon our repentance, we have received mercy through Christ’s death on the cross. The call to homosexuals to repent and to come to faith in Jesus Christ is made out of genuine love and concern for our neighbour.

Yours in friendly discussion,
Rev. Peter Simpson, Penn Free Methodist Church

Can't understand why the BFP give so much space to this chap. The last time was when he was complaining about a poster for the Wycombe swan.He is an egostistical ninny, who loves to promote himself as the guardian of our morals.His church is not well known, go and have a listen to him in the high street on a thursday if you want to see/hear intolerance in action.
I could understand him being given this amount of space if he were from one of the mainstream religions, representing millions,but a few people from Penn, really? Are his views that important? I think he suffers from the sin of pride, and the bfp are either really short on real news this week or are extracting the urine.Please no more of his twisted views.

Looks like there has been quite a clamour to post hostile remarks here.

Please note that Rev Simpson has given a good explanation of why some Old Testament Laws like food and clothing are temporary while others such as murder adultery lying stealing and homosexuality are permanent.

Please be honest and do not keep reapeating these same tired old objections.

Rather consider that it was the preaching of Rev Simpson is like that of men like John Wesley in the 18th Century that saved Britain out of a very foul state, rather like it is today where mothers neglected their children in favour of their boyfriends and drink.

Rev Simpson's views are not obscure. The old morality of the Bible has been the backbone of our world and we would do better to trun back to God than to mock at such for god will have the last word.

Why do people in the church think they have the monopoly on morality? By expressing homophobic views certainly doesn’t seem so and frankly I find those views utterly distasteful and certainly out of touch with modern society.
People do not choose to be homosexual any more than they choose to be male or female, black or white or even short or tall. People do choose to follow the bible and it makes me wonder why, when it is so bigoted towards people who are behaving quite naturally.
I wonder how much difference there is between Christians and the ‘preachers of hate’ we often see on the front pages of tabloids? Not much, I think.

The first sentence of Mr Simpson contends that the redefinition of marriage by the government to be wrong. He argues that from his Biblical conviction, he cannot accept this newly proposed meaning to the whole definition and practice of marriage. This would be the view of all true Christians who believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. However, the meaning of marriage, as defined by the union of a man and a woman, is not specifically a Christian teaching, even though it is best defined in the Bible. All over the world, in all cultures and languages, marriage is understood as the union between the people of the opposite sex, resulting in formation of families, which are the building blocks of any society.
To force the redefining of things which are behavioural and universal resembles the dictatorial regimes. Being born and brought up in the Islamic Republic of Iran showed me how not only the State was redefining words, but also concepts and rewriting history. This kind of redefinition caused the censorship of all forms of media and education, e.g. books, schools and universities. The same thing is happening under the redefinition of marriage in this country, in that, all who take a viewpoint that marriage is between one man and one woman will be in time in some form persecuted.
If the Government was to redefine marriage, what would happen to those churches and Christians who hold to historic confessions of faith, such as the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Westminster, the Savoy or the Baptist Confessions of Faith? In those historic confessions and creeds, the Biblical teaching on marriage is clearly upheld. Will the State in time require all of such churches redefine their creeds and confessions? Will the various dictionaries of the languages throughout the world become obsolete, since they all define marriage to be the legal union between men to women?
Therefore, the definition of marriage cannot be altered, or else it forces a knock-on effect upon many fundamental things in society. Already in our liberal Western society, the same legal rights are given to homosexuals under the civil partnership legislation.
Matrimonial union by nature includes a husband and a wife, and usually as a result of the consummation of that union children are born. This is the law of nature - and not one created by man, church or any government. Marriage in its nature is not an issue of love, or people's views - it is the issue of human nature - i.e. how we are made male and female with our distinctive physical and emotional and psychological distinctions, to complement one another respectively.
Equality does not mean freedom from diversity. The teaching of the Bible and the Christian message is that all people, male or female are sinners who by nature disobey their holy Creator, and deserve judgement and condemnation. All (myself and Mr Simpson included) are equal in their condemnation before God, yet God sends His own Son Jesus Christ to be punished instead of them, and take their sins, and whosoever believes in the Person and saving work of Jesus Christ on the Cross will be forgiven.
The Bible speaks of perfect marriage, as being married to the never changing God, through faith in Jesus Christ, which unites us by His grace for ever to God.
Those who speak about seemingly promotion of slavery or murder in the Bible, simply show both their blind bias against and their utter ignorance of the Bible and their lack of understanding of evangelical Christianity.
Finally, it is not for any government or church to define marriage, but it is God’s prerogative. And he says,
Genesis 1:27-28 - “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Hebrews 13:4 - “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

pooyanm wrote:
The first sentence of Mr Simpson contends that the redefinition of marriage by the government to be wrong. He argues that from his Biblical conviction, he cannot accept this newly proposed meaning to the whole definition and practice of marriage. This would be the view of all true Christians who believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. However, the meaning of marriage, as defined by the union of a man and a woman, is not specifically a Christian teaching, even though it is best defined in the Bible. All over the world, in all cultures and languages, marriage is understood as the union between the people of the opposite sex, resulting in formation of families, which are the building blocks of any society.
To force the redefining of things which are behavioural and universal resembles the dictatorial regimes. Being born and brought up in the Islamic Republic of Iran showed me how not only the State was redefining words, but also concepts and rewriting history. This kind of redefinition caused the censorship of all forms of media and education, e.g. books, schools and universities. The same thing is happening under the redefinition of marriage in this country, in that, all who take a viewpoint that marriage is between one man and one woman will be in time in some form persecuted.
If the Government was to redefine marriage, what would happen to those churches and Christians who hold to historic confessions of faith, such as the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Westminster, the Savoy or the Baptist Confessions of Faith? In those historic confessions and creeds, the Biblical teaching on marriage is clearly upheld. Will the State in time require all of such churches redefine their creeds and confessions? Will the various dictionaries of the languages throughout the world become obsolete, since they all define marriage to be the legal union between men to women?
Therefore, the definition of marriage cannot be altered, or else it forces a knock-on effect upon many fundamental things in society. Already in our liberal Western society, the same legal rights are given to homosexuals under the civil partnership legislation.
Matrimonial union by nature includes a husband and a wife, and usually as a result of the consummation of that union children are born. This is the law of nature - and not one created by man, church or any government. Marriage in its nature is not an issue of love, or people's views - it is the issue of human nature - i.e. how we are made male and female with our distinctive physical and emotional and psychological distinctions, to complement one another respectively.
Equality does not mean freedom from diversity. The teaching of the Bible and the Christian message is that all people, male or female are sinners who by nature disobey their holy Creator, and deserve judgement and condemnation. All (myself and Mr Simpson included) are equal in their condemnation before God, yet God sends His own Son Jesus Christ to be punished instead of them, and take their sins, and whosoever believes in the Person and saving work of Jesus Christ on the Cross will be forgiven.
The Bible speaks of perfect marriage, as being married to the never changing God, through faith in Jesus Christ, which unites us by His grace for ever to God.
Those who speak about seemingly promotion of slavery or murder in the Bible, simply show both their blind bias against and their utter ignorance of the Bible and their lack of understanding of evangelical Christianity.
Finally, it is not for any government or church to define marriage, but it is God’s prerogative. And he says,
Genesis 1:27-28 - “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Hebrews 13:4 - “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the notion that the bible has a monopoly over the definition of the term "marriage".

Its also wrong to assume that just because the Iranian state "was redefining words, but also concepts and rewriting history" and using it to oppress opposition that the same would apply in this country which is a fairly liberal democracy rather than a fascist theocracy.

As far as I am aware the government has no intention of imposing anything on any churches or forcing them to "redefine their creeds and confessions". I'm sure they have more important things to think about.

I have heard to this poor man preaching what he beleives is right in Wycombe high street. All I say is don't always beleive what you read because the bible is the biggest fraud book in the world, full of lies and rubbish. I know some people who profess to be Christians, I wouldn't give them house room. There is also a man they call the pope who doesn't like "gay marriage " but it's all ok that he was a member of the Hilter Youth movement and he covered up many many peadophile crimes by moving the guilty people around the world to offend again and again. The church is just one big pile of ....................
..

I write in support of Mr. Simpson's comments and would like to say how saddening it is to note both the spirit and the ignorance of most of the comments made in response to his article. The responses are generally ill-informed and display an appalling ignorance of the nature of the various laws contained in the Old Testament. I was glad to see that he explained this difference and I hope that his explanation will stem the flow of more ridiculous comments (though I have my doubts).
I found Pooyan's comment both interesting and helpful and he made some valid points.
I would simply like to add that as I believe one of the purposes of marriage is the procreation of children, any union in which it is impossible for this to happen cannot be described as marriage. It may be a union of sorts; it may have been made legal, but it is not marriage.
I am aware that there are some heterosexual married couples who may be unable to have children on account of some physical disability but, as we were taught at school, 'the exception proves the rule'.

Mick Harris wrote:
I write in support of Mr. Simpson's comments and would like to say how saddening it is to note both the spirit and the ignorance of most of the comments made in response to his article. The responses are generally ill-informed and display an appalling ignorance of the nature of the various laws contained in the Old Testament. I was glad to see that he explained this difference and I hope that his explanation will stem the flow of more ridiculous comments (though I have my doubts).
I found Pooyan's comment both interesting and helpful and he made some valid points.
I would simply like to add that as I believe one of the purposes of marriage is the procreation of children, any union in which it is impossible for this to happen cannot be described as marriage. It may be a union of sorts; it may have been made legal, but it is not marriage.
I am aware that there are some heterosexual married couples who may be unable to have children on account of some physical disability but, as we were taught at school, 'the exception proves the rule'.

You are saying that because you choose to define the word "marriage" in a particular way then that is the only acceptable usage of the word.

Also, what do you mean by "the exception proves the rule" ?

- Nice article, rich comments.
- Note that Reporter didn't state connotations of Penn reverendo's pious ejaculations.
- Was it e.g. a newsletter?
- Or was this just an attention-seeking stunt, with reporter attending?
- She handled it well, but I hope (a Christian virtue) she kept out of the way when his kettle boiled!
- Jolly good fun. Is there a loonie-bin in Penn for bible-bashing zealots?
Oughta be.

Michael, HP7
March 2012

The actual meaning of "proves" in the saying is, of course, "tests". Well, I`ve said this before, I know, but hearing the Reverend and his supporters does again provide a fascinating glimpse of the fundamentalist pre-Darwinian mindset and its grim certainties... no doubt gay people in relationships can look forward to an endless screaming agony in Hell while these virtuous people are simultaneously enjoying their time in Heaven, despite the noise from downstairs. And again, though his son seems a pretty decent chap with some good ideas, Jahweh - at least according to the Old Testament - comes across as seriously psychotic. There are something like 28,000 "official" versions of Christianity currently doing the rounds, nearly all of them claiming Bible-based authenticity, many hating each other deeply and many offering differing concepts of marriage - but neither your religion or your culture should give you the right to condemn love; between anyone.

The problem is that the vast majority of people in this country are not interested in the rules of an antiquated book that is long past its sell by date.
Therefore "blah blahing" what it says doesn't really mean anything.
We are not scared,we are not in awe and you are in fact, wasting your breath.
Your opinion - you are entitled to it but I am afraid that is all it is...... an opinion :)

demoness the second wrote:
The problem is that the vast majority of people in this country are not interested in the rules of an antiquated book that is long past its sell by date.
Therefore "blah blahing" what it says doesn't really mean anything.
We are not scared,we are not in awe and you are in fact, wasting your breath.
Your opinion - you are entitled to it but I am afraid that is all it is...... an opinion :)

But from your very name, it is obvious that you are the spawn of the devil. The fact that you take the stance that you do clearly proves them right.

Peter Simpson wrote:
Many argue that the Bible is inconsistent and unreliable, because in the book of Leviticus there are verses prohibiting the eating of shellfish and the making of garments from mixed fibres, activities which are now regarded as perfectly legitimate.

Such an argument, however, is a failure to distinguish between God’s moral law, which is for all time, and certain civil, dietary and ceremonial laws, which were for the limited period of Israel’s existence as an earthly theocracy prior to the coming of Christ.

These latter laws were of real value to Old Testament Israel, and their purpose was to give the people a separate status from the surrounding idolatrous nations. Now, however, they have been set aside with the coming of Christ’s kingdom, which is a spiritual kingdom, and which comprises people out of all nations.

During World War 2 there was a special law preventing the use of petrol for private cars. This law was essential for preserving limited fuel supplies, and even now it teaches us the principle of foregoing personal convenience for the higher good. Because certain laws of the land for specific situations have now been set aside, it does not mean that all the laws which remain can be ignored.

Yes, the temporary civil laws of the Old Testament re shellfish and mixed fibres are no longer in force, but they still teach us important principles, firstly, the need to obey God, because He in His wisdom decrees a thing, and, secondly, the practical fact that toxins readily deposit themselves in shellfish, and that mixed fibres in hot climates have a tendency to produce static electricity.

The Ten Commandments, however, and all the rest of God’s moral law, have never been set aside, but were re-affirmed by Christ during his earthly ministry. Indeed, the moral law is the subject of much of the Sermon on the Mount. The New Testament accordingly contains various references to the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Going back to Leviticus, in chapters 18 & 19, where the sinfulness of homosexuality is made clear, there is also a condemnation of incest, adultery, prostitution, ****, perjury, stealing, mistreating the handicapped, ignoring the poor, dishonouring the elderly and hating one’s neighbour. We courteously ask our opponents, Is it likely that the Bible is right in all of these moral areas, yet wrong on the one matter of homosexuality?

Bible-believing Christians acknowledge themselves to be undeserving sinners. Yet by God’s grace, upon our repentance, we have received mercy through Christ’s death on the cross. The call to homosexuals to repent and to come to faith in Jesus Christ is made out of genuine love and concern for our neighbour.

Yours in friendly discussion,
Rev. Peter Simpson, Penn Free Methodist Church

Many argue that the Bible is inconsistent and unreliable, because in the book of Leviticus there are verses prohibiting the eating of shellfish and the making of garments from mixed fibres, activities which are now regarded as perfectly legitimate.

Such an argument, however, is a failure to distinguish between God’s moral law, which is for all time, and certain civil, dietary and ceremonial laws, which were for the limited period of Israel’s existence as an earthly theocracy prior to the coming of Christ.


These latter laws were of real value to Old Testament Israel, and their purpose was to give the people a separate status from the surrounding idolatrous nations. Now, however, they have been set aside with the coming of Christ’s kingdom, which is a spiritual kingdom, and which comprises people out of all nations.

/
I am only a modern mortal but to my mind God seems to be expressing himself pretty unambiguously in Leviticus and Biblical exegesis that allows clergy to say which bits of the Old Testament should be interpreted in their historical contexts and which are currently valid exclude non-Biblical scholars who are being told how to behave by clergymen who ARE Biblical scholars. Maybe that’s God’s will though and I am showing my ignorance by raising this objection.
…
During World War 2 there was a special law preventing the use of petrol for private cars. This law was essential for preserving limited fuel supplies, and even now it teaches us the principle of foregoing personal convenience for the higher good. Because certain laws of the land for specific situations have now been set aside, it does not mean that all the laws which remain can be ignored.
/
I don’t see how the fact that petrol was rationed during WW2 is analogous with Biblical strictures still being current for the common good. Also in this paragraph Mr Simpson appears to be referring solely to human-made law - ‘laws of the land for specific situations … all the laws …’

…
Yes, the temporary civil laws of the Old Testament re shellfish and mixed fibres are no longer in force, but they still teach us important principles, firstly, the need to obey God, because He in His wisdom decrees a thing, and, secondly, the practical fact that toxins readily deposit themselves in shellfish, and that mixed fibres in hot climates have a tendency to produce static electricity.
/
If they are temporary and no longer in force then how do they ‘teach us important principles’?
…
The Ten Commandments, however, and all the rest of God’s moral law, have never been set aside,
/
Nobody is arguing that the ten commandments should be set aside – they are and will be the basis of much of the criminal law.
…
Going back to Leviticus, in chapters 18 & 19, where the sinfulness of homosexuality is made clear, there is also a condemnation of incest, adultery, prostitution, ****, perjury, stealing, mistreating the handicapped, ignoring the poor, dishonouring the elderly and hating one’s neighbour. We courteously ask our opponents, Is it likely that the Bible is right in all of these moral areas, yet wrong on the one matter of homosexuality?
/
A lot of people seem to be doing these things these days (especially ignoring the poor). The viciousness of these things is obvious but I would ask how prohibitions on the acknowledgement of homosexuality are a virtuous thing or are they out of date like ‘the temporary civil laws of the Old Testament re shellfish and mixed fibres (which) are no longer in force,’
…
Bible-believing Christians acknowledge themselves to be undeserving sinners. Yet by God’s grace, upon our repentance, we have received mercy through Christ’s death on the cross. The call to homosexuals to repent and to come to faith in Jesus Christ is made out of genuine love and concern for our neighbour.
/
I respect your faith and thank you for attempting to share it with others, but I also think a more practical ‘genuine love and concern for our neighbour’, would be to admit that gays do not make themselves – it’s just the way they are - and respect them despite their difference.

Yours in friendly discussion,

tom.marlow2 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
The problem is that the vast majority of people in this country are not interested in the rules of an antiquated book that is long past its sell by date.
Therefore "blah blahing" what it says doesn't really mean anything.
We are not scared,we are not in awe and you are in fact, wasting your breath.
Your opinion - you are entitled to it but I am afraid that is all it is...... an opinion :)

But from your very name, it is obvious that you are the spawn of the devil. The fact that you take the stance that you do clearly proves them right.

You know me too well :))) XX

Is she the love-child of igor Blogger of Evil?

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Is she the love-child of igor Blogger of Evil?

Hardly.... I wouldn't thought he could raise a smile - much less anything else :)

What about his trusty traditional Viagra?

I come amongst you again to say that gay marriage is fine, that is all I have to say on the subject, there are children starving in the world, I have more important things to worry about

Jesus_Christ wrote:
I come amongst you again to say that gay marriage is fine, that is all I have to say on the subject, there are children starving in the world, I have more important things to worry about

Excellent!

In response to Tom Marlow2 the saying, 'The exception proves the rule' means that something would not be an exception if there was not a rule. H. W. Fowler, whose classic book on English Usage has been in print for ages, gave an example from his wartime experience: “Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm”, which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule.

So what does it mean in the context of your earlier post?

Fowler is interesting but a bit dated. The example you cite is only one of 5 usages he describes which range from the (sort of) rigorous to complete nonsense.

Cecil Adams has an intersting discussion at http://www.straightd
ope.com/columns/read
/731/whats-the-meani
ng-of-the-expression
-thats-the-exception
-that-proves-the-rul
e

I think you have to try a bit harder to account for childless heterosexual couples in your defintion of what is sinfull or not.

Mr Simpson might even be possessed by demons and the devil. Those who are religious should pray for him. He's obviously at least a dingbat who likes the sound of his own voice and luckily he represents minority views. A bigot wearing blinkers.

makes me laugh that the main defence the righteous have against any that do not share their views is always to question our mental capabilities, or accuse us of ignorance. I was bought up in the xtian church and until a certain age probably spent more time in bible studies than a trainee vicar. Please do not weaken your arguments by accusing us of being ignorant, or of not knowing your bible.
Don't be surprised though if we point out the fact that you 'cherry pick' the OT in an attempt to prove bigoted and outdated arguments.This is a human rights issue,rights that a lot of religions are rather short of.

Michael, HP7 wrote:
* RESPECTED rural south Bucks clergyman, middle aged, disquieting pink tie n'
matching hank, thick wrists, GSOH, rails against Sodom and Gomorrah, needs suede shoes / sister soles. All serious offers considered. PO Box Penn.

probably hates HS2 as well

Dear Michael HP7, You speak of “a respected South Bucks clergyman”. Very politely, it is pretty obvious from the comments on this blog that the last thing that I am is respected. It is also relevant to point out that all three mainstream political parties support the redefinition of marriage, and that David Cameron calls it being a true conservative. Political correctness and respectability are certainly not on the side of evangelical Christianity on this issue, or any other. Did you know that even the Women’s Institute have refused to carry an advert in their magazine supporting a Biblical position on this matter? So, it is most definitely the establishment which is opposing a distinctly Christian view of marriage.

Dear ImperturbableLawrenc
e, You wrote, “Nobody is arguing that the Ten Commandments should be set aside”. Very courteously, sir, that is exactly what this is about. The rejection of God’s moral law is the rejection of God Himself, and the breaking of the first commandment. The Ten Commandments are of necessity a summary of God’s moral law, not an exhaustive statement. We go to the rest of Scripture for the details of the Decalogue’s summarising. Re the 7th commandment, the term ‘adultery’ covers all breaches of faithfulness from God’s appointed institution of marriage, and so includes ****, polygamy, prostitution, heterosexual fornication and the sin at the heart of this debate. The Bible makes it clear in many places that this particular sin is very much a breaking of God’s unchanging moral law, of which the Ten Commandments are a summary. So the bottom line in this whole controversy is society’s rejection of the Trinitarian God and His laws.

Dear Demoness the second, You spoke of the Bible as “an antiquated book that is long past its sell by date”. Very politely, this comment makes an assumption that truth is not absolute, but changes with the passing of time, and also that man is of necessity getting wiser. I submit that that is a flawed assumption. Re the Bible, may I please assure you that, even in cool progressive 21st century Britain, it is still changing lives and leading sinners to salvation, despite all the opprobrium heaped upon it.

Yours in courteous debate, and desiring the very best for all who oppose the Bible’s teaching.
Rev. Peter Simpson.

Peter Simpson wrote:
Dear Michael HP7, You speak of “a respected South Bucks clergyman”. Very politely, it is pretty obvious from the comments on this blog that the last thing that I am is respected. It is also relevant to point out that all three mainstream political parties support the redefinition of marriage, and that David Cameron calls it being a true conservative. Political correctness and respectability are certainly not on the side of evangelical Christianity on this issue, or any other. Did you know that even the Women’s Institute have refused to carry an advert in their magazine supporting a Biblical position on this matter? So, it is most definitely the establishment which is opposing a distinctly Christian view of marriage.

Dear ImperturbableLawrenc

e, You wrote, “Nobody is arguing that the Ten Commandments should be set aside”. Very courteously, sir, that is exactly what this is about. The rejection of God’s moral law is the rejection of God Himself, and the breaking of the first commandment. The Ten Commandments are of necessity a summary of God’s moral law, not an exhaustive statement. We go to the rest of Scripture for the details of the Decalogue’s summarising. Re the 7th commandment, the term ‘adultery’ covers all breaches of faithfulness from God’s appointed institution of marriage, and so includes ****, polygamy, prostitution, heterosexual fornication and the sin at the heart of this debate. The Bible makes it clear in many places that this particular sin is very much a breaking of God’s unchanging moral law, of which the Ten Commandments are a summary. So the bottom line in this whole controversy is society’s rejection of the Trinitarian God and His laws.

Dear Demoness the second, You spoke of the Bible as “an antiquated book that is long past its sell by date”. Very politely, this comment makes an assumption that truth is not absolute, but changes with the passing of time, and also that man is of necessity getting wiser. I submit that that is a flawed assumption. Re the Bible, may I please assure you that, even in cool progressive 21st century Britain, it is still changing lives and leading sinners to salvation, despite all the opprobrium heaped upon it.

Yours in courteous debate, and desiring the very best for all who oppose the Bible’s teaching.
Rev. Peter Simpson.

Firstly, it is the brave who stand up to be counted. I am just surprised that other Christian pastors and clergy have not voiced their concern at the proposed legislation.

Even Dr Williams has only, apparently shown private concern. Surprisingly, Mr Cameron purports to be Christian.

Another surprise is a phrase in your writings above.
Why a "Trinitarian God"?

This means you have created a God which is not the same as God of Jews and Muslims.

In doing so, you are, at a stroke, excluding the Jewish, Muslim, and also Hindu view of marriage, which is no different from the Christian view of marriage.

The Ten commandments dictated to Moses, by God, are the same for Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

I am a retired Baptist minister and have had the wonderful privilege of preaching the gospel for over 50 years.
During those years I have seen many lives wonderfully changed by the power of God - all sorts of people; old, young; academics and 'ordinary' people; white and coloured.
All would testify to the joy of peace with God and peace in the heart, even in the midst of the great afflictions which many of them have passed through.
I have been with many on their deathbeds and have to say what John Wesley said of the early Methodists, 'Our people die well.'
No doubt many will have critical things to say about what I have written but I thank God that I can say that I have seen the fruit of what I believe in the lives of others.
Have the views which have brought forth such bitter words against Rev. Simpson brought forth such fruit?
The spirit in which he has been attacked does little justice to his many opponents whereas his courteous approach speaks volumes for the grace of God in his life.

Peter Simpson wrote:
Dear Michael HP7, You speak of “a respected South Bucks clergyman”. Very politely, it is pretty obvious from the comments on this blog that the last thing that I am is respected. It is also relevant to point out that all three mainstream political parties support the redefinition of marriage, and that David Cameron calls it being a true conservative. Political correctness and respectability are certainly not on the side of evangelical Christianity on this issue, or any other. Did you know that even the Women’s Institute have refused to carry an advert in their magazine supporting a Biblical position on this matter? So, it is most definitely the establishment which is opposing a distinctly Christian view of marriage.

Dear ImperturbableLawrenc

e, You wrote, “Nobody is arguing that the Ten Commandments should be set aside”. Very courteously, sir, that is exactly what this is about. The rejection of God’s moral law is the rejection of God Himself, and the breaking of the first commandment. The Ten Commandments are of necessity a summary of God’s moral law, not an exhaustive statement. We go to the rest of Scripture for the details of the Decalogue’s summarising. Re the 7th commandment, the term ‘adultery’ covers all breaches of faithfulness from God’s appointed institution of marriage, and so includes ****, polygamy, prostitution, heterosexual fornication and the sin at the heart of this debate. The Bible makes it clear in many places that this particular sin is very much a breaking of God’s unchanging moral law, of which the Ten Commandments are a summary. So the bottom line in this whole controversy is society’s rejection of the Trinitarian God and His laws.

Dear Demoness the second, You spoke of the Bible as “an antiquated book that is long past its sell by date”. Very politely, this comment makes an assumption that truth is not absolute, but changes with the passing of time, and also that man is of necessity getting wiser. I submit that that is a flawed assumption. Re the Bible, may I please assure you that, even in cool progressive 21st century Britain, it is still changing lives and leading sinners to salvation, despite all the opprobrium heaped upon it.

Yours in courteous debate, and desiring the very best for all who oppose the Bible’s teaching.
Rev. Peter Simpson.

‘Dear ImperturbableLawrenc
e,
You wrote, “Nobody is arguing that the Ten Commandments should be set aside”. Very courteously, sir, that is exactly what this is about. The rejection of God’s moral law is the rejection of God Himself, and the breaking of the first commandment. The Ten Commandments are of necessity a summary of God’s moral law, not an exhaustive statement. We go to the rest of Scripture for the details of the Decalogue’s summarising. Re the 7th commandment, the term ‘adultery’ covers all breaches of faithfulness from God’s appointed institution of marriage, and so includes ****, polygamy, prostitution, heterosexual fornication and the sin at the heart of this debate. The Bible makes it clear in many places that this particular sin is very much a breaking of God’s unchanging moral law, of which the Ten Commandments are a summary. So the bottom line in this whole controversy is society’s rejection of the Trinitarian God and His laws.’
/
Dear Mr Simpson I mentioned the Ten Commandments as you had held them up as an example of the unchanging nature of some of God’s law: ‘The Ten Commandments, however, and all the rest of God’s moral law, have never been set aside,’ – a view that I largely respect. If you wish to say that ‘The rejection of God’s moral law is the rejection of God Himself and the breaking of the first commandment ’ then it IS possible to say that rejection of the ten commandments is exactly what this debate is about. You have been accused elsewhere here of ‘cherry picking’ God’s commands to us and this does not seem an unreasonable accusation to make – if we are going to take God seriously then we should do all that He says, however that is not possible and we must interpret His wishes as best we can in a practical way that enables people to be as happy as they can without being a nuisance to others while we are here – you are interpreting them when you say that the strictures regarding shellfish and mixed fibres et cetera should be understood in their historical context. Beside this some of us cannot in all honesty believe the first commandment as we are incapable of sharing your faith in God’s existence and the incarnation of His son, and it would be false for us to say otherwise. People have ignored the first five commandments for as long as they have existed (presumably that’s why they were made in the first place) and I would say that the latter five commandments ARE enshrined in the law of all civilised nations or at least are regarded with approval in them including this country’s. Christians need to respect the views and the basic psychology of non-Christians and non-heterosexuals and a lot of Christians do this – this is why I do not simply mock your views - but I think it is taking things a bit far to say that allowing the reality of relationships between gay people to be acknowledged in law constitutes ‘The rejection of God’s moral law (and) the rejection of God Himself’.

Respectfully yours

Mick Harris wrote:
I am a retired Baptist minister and have had the wonderful privilege of preaching the gospel for over 50 years.
During those years I have seen many lives wonderfully changed by the power of God - all sorts of people; old, young; academics and 'ordinary' people; white and coloured.
All would testify to the joy of peace with God and peace in the heart, even in the midst of the great afflictions which many of them have passed through.
I have been with many on their deathbeds and have to say what John Wesley said of the early Methodists, 'Our people die well.'
No doubt many will have critical things to say about what I have written but I thank God that I can say that I have seen the fruit of what I believe in the lives of others.
Have the views which have brought forth such bitter words against Rev. Simpson brought forth such fruit?
The spirit in which he has been attacked does little justice to his many opponents whereas his courteous approach speaks volumes for the grace of God in his life.

Actually, no-one has attacked him. He is no doubt safe and warm in his house, eating his breakfast as I write.

What has happened is that he has made some provocative comments designed to generate a response and a number of people have pointed out in a more or less polite way, the nonsense he is speaking.

For sure, if you take a position as extreme as he has, then inevitably people will poke fun at it.

Courteous does not equate to right.

tom.marlow2 wrote:

Mick Harris wrote: I am a retired Baptist minister and have had the wonderful privilege of preaching the gospel for over 50 years. During those years I have seen many lives wonderfully changed by the power of God - all sorts of people; old, young; academics and 'ordinary' people; white and coloured. All would testify to the joy of peace with God and peace in the heart, even in the midst of the great afflictions which many of them have passed through. I have been with many on their deathbeds and have to say what John Wesley said of the early Methodists, 'Our people die well.' No doubt many will have critical things to say about what I have written but I thank God that I can say that I have seen the fruit of what I believe in the lives of others. Have the views which have brought forth such bitter words against Rev. Simpson brought forth such fruit? The spirit in which he has been attacked does little justice to his many opponents whereas his courteous approach speaks volumes for the grace of God in his life.

Actually, no-one has attacked him. He is no doubt safe and warm in his house, eating his breakfast as I write. What has happened is that he has made some provocative comments designed to generate a response and a number of people have pointed out in a more or less polite way, the nonsense he is speaking. For sure, if you take a position as extreme as he has, then inevitably people will poke fun at it. Courteous does not equate to right.

Absolutely. If you stand up in public and present such views, you must of course at the very least expect opprobrium.

Dear Imperturbable Lawrence,

I very much appreciate your polite tone, and thank you for it.

A number of the laws given in the Old Testament apply specifically to occupation of the Promised Land and to the Temple worship and ceremonies which went with it. In AD70 the Temple ceased to exist, and so did the priesthood and sacrificial system. So the civil, dietary and ceremonial laws relating to the Temple and to the old covenant theocracy ceased to apply, because the Temple was gone and the theocratic nation with its own king was gone. A new covenant came into being, applying to men of all nations.

The disciples of Christ had to come to terms with this new order, realising, for example, that under the new covenant which Christ had brought in there is no necessity for the rite of circumcision. Therefore, the Old Testament law on circumcision is not now applicable to Christians.

This, however, in no way negates the great value of this law for its duration, and we can still learn from the spiritual meaning behind it. Thus the apostle Paul in the New Testament speaks of "the circumcision of Christ", meaning the change which Christ effects in the heart, when a man comes to Him for salvation.

The New Testament clearly sets out the passing of the ceremonial, civil and dietary laws (e.g. re unclean meats and shellfish), but at the same time reinforces the eternal validity of the moral law, as summarised by the Ten Commandments. The Sermon on the Mount does exactly this, where Christ reinforces the moral law, dealing with, for example, murder and adultery.

So to no longer observe the law on shell fish, or other dietary laws, but to observe God's moral law on homosexuality, is not to 'cherry pick', but to move from the preparatory stage of the old covenant to the fulfilment stage of the new covenant brought in by Christ.

To become a Christian one has to examine one's own life in the light of God's moral law, including one's heart disposition, as well as one's actual deeds. I became a Christian, because I saw that I had hopelessly broken God's perfect law, given for man's good, and therefore needed the mercy which only Jesus Christ can bring through His death on the Cross.

Yours in respectful and friendly discussion, Rev. Peter Simpson.

...And just what - according to your chosen cosmology, and in the assumption we have souls - will happen to gays, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, etc, after their physical deaths? Please elucidate.

The Bible both Old Testament and the New Testament teach that the whole of mankind is in a state of moral bankruptcy, has fallen into a state of sin. So it does not matter who we are, and what we think. Our sinful lifestyles, and false beliefs only demonstrate that very fact - that by nature there is something wrong with us. This is not how it was at the beginning. God made man perfect and upright, but it was man who wanted to do things His own way, and rejected his Maker. The fault is not with God, but with man who has made moral and spiritual shipwreck.

All people in every generation and location are sinners and spiritually and morally fallen. So the issue is not that God will judge us on the account if we believe the Bible or not, or if we even believe in Jesus Christ or not - He judges all on the account of our sin - if sin has been justly dealt with, if it has been justly forgiven. If it has not - i.e. if the person appears before God in his current guilty condition, then God as a just Judge must punish the person who has broken His Law.

This is the very reason that Jesus Christ was promised by God from the beginning of time, and then throughout the Old Testament that He would come to die in the place of sinners. This is how God demonstrates His love toward a sinful and fallen world. Those who trust only Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and admit and turn away from the sins. The birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was foretold hundreds and thousands of years before His coming. There is only One perfect person who is the Son of God, who died for our sins - if we reject that, then we continue with our guilt of sin, and have to come under the just sentence of God, which will be eternal ruin of our souls in Hell. May God lead the readers to see this truth.

So were I to assume your cosmology, and have my "sins" forgiven, but my mother declined such an offer, I would be spending an eternity in Heaven knowing that, simultaneously, she was screaming in the eternal fires of Hell? A horror story worthy of Poe...your deity is malevolent indeed.

...Nonetheless, do keep it up - following the convolutions of the pre-Darwinian fundamentalist mindset never ceases to fascinate. I presume all the Buddhists will also be in Hell? If so, I`ll be in good company, at least.

There is no Hell in Buddha Land. Or so Buddha (allegedly) said. Unfortunately he's not around to verify that.
.
Will you settle for Purgatory or even Limbo (with a stack of out-of-date magazines to wile away the almost endless 'days' in the waiting room with no seats - don't forget to take your glasses)
.
Are there 'days' in Heaven or Hell or all the other afterlife places ?
.
And is it that permanent dangerous UV sunshine fron the Sun or even the deepest Stygian darkness with only an occasional flare-up when the Devil and his (her ?) mates throw some other sinner on the fire ?
.
These questions must be answered - with conviction by these people who speak to God or even his helpers. Otherwise I will remain sceptical and apprehensive about it all.

No, indeed, Buddhism does not postulate "afterlives" of any description; it advocates experiencing life directly, and now: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" .

No, indeed, Buddhism does not postulate "afterlives" of any description; it advocates experiencing life directly, and now: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" .

Apologies: I hope inadvertently saying that twice doesn`t lessen my message!

It perhaps unnecessarily over-emphasizes your obviously sincerely held convictions.
.
Or draws attention a possible short-term memory problem.
.
Or it's that unresponsive BPF site hiccup which prompts correspondents to click the SUBMIT button more than once.
.
Or perhaps somebody's diety is trying to communicate with you.
.
Or ......

pooyanm wrote:
The Bible both Old Testament and the New Testament teach that the whole of mankind is in a state of moral bankruptcy, has fallen into a state of sin. So it does not matter who we are, and what we think. Our sinful lifestyles, and false beliefs only demonstrate that very fact - that by nature there is something wrong with us. This is not how it was at the beginning. God made man perfect and upright, but it was man who wanted to do things His own way, and rejected his Maker. The fault is not with God, but with man who has made moral and spiritual shipwreck.

All people in every generation and location are sinners and spiritually and morally fallen. So the issue is not that God will judge us on the account if we believe the Bible or not, or if we even believe in Jesus Christ or not - He judges all on the account of our sin - if sin has been justly dealt with, if it has been justly forgiven. If it has not - i.e. if the person appears before God in his current guilty condition, then God as a just Judge must punish the person who has broken His Law.

This is the very reason that Jesus Christ was promised by God from the beginning of time, and then throughout the Old Testament that He would come to die in the place of sinners. This is how God demonstrates His love toward a sinful and fallen world. Those who trust only Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and admit and turn away from the sins. The birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was foretold hundreds and thousands of years before His coming. There is only One perfect person who is the Son of God, who died for our sins - if we reject that, then we continue with our guilt of sin, and have to come under the just sentence of God, which will be eternal ruin of our souls in Hell. May God lead the readers to see this truth.

God made man perfect and upright, but it was man who wanted to do things His (sic) own way, and rejected his Maker.
/
Why did they reject Him if they were perfect and why did God make them that way in the first place?

Well, actually, it`s number three. I think you knew that.

Well, actually, it`s number three. I think you knew that.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

pooyanm wrote: The Bible both Old Testament and the New Testament teach that the whole of mankind is in a state of moral bankruptcy, has fallen into a state of sin. So it does not matter who we are, and what we think. Our sinful lifestyles, and false beliefs only demonstrate that very fact - that by nature there is something wrong with us. This is not how it was at the beginning. God made man perfect and upright, but it was man who wanted to do things His own way, and rejected his Maker. The fault is not with God, but with man who has made moral and spiritual shipwreck. All people in every generation and location are sinners and spiritually and morally fallen. So the issue is not that God will judge us on the account if we believe the Bible or not, or if we even believe in Jesus Christ or not - He judges all on the account of our sin - if sin has been justly dealt with, if it has been justly forgiven. If it has not - i.e. if the person appears before God in his current guilty condition, then God as a just Judge must punish the person who has broken His Law. This is the very reason that Jesus Christ was promised by God from the beginning of time, and then throughout the Old Testament that He would come to die in the place of sinners. This is how God demonstrates His love toward a sinful and fallen world. Those who trust only Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and admit and turn away from the sins. The birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was foretold hundreds and thousands of years before His coming. There is only One perfect person who is the Son of God, who died for our sins - if we reject that, then we continue with our guilt of sin, and have to come under the just sentence of God, which will be eternal ruin of our souls in Hell. May God lead the readers to see this truth.

God made man perfect and upright, but it was man who wanted to do things His (sic) own way, and rejected his Maker. / Why did they reject Him if they were perfect and why did God make them that way in the first place?

Tad baffling, ain`t it? They`ll no doubt tell you that "He moves in mysterious ways", non?

Bill Taxpayer wrote:
Marriage is a legal status, so cannot be dictated by the church - it really is none of their business.

I'm glad there are laws now that protect people against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and so on. Mr Simpson and his like should be prosecuted for inciting homophobia.

Interesting that you left out discrimination based on religious beliefs Bill, our own Constitution does exactly that albeit against the Papists.

pooyanm wrote:
The Bible both Old Testament and the New Testament teach that the whole of mankind is in a state of moral bankruptcy, has fallen into a state of sin. So it does not matter who we are, and what we think. Our sinful lifestyles, and false beliefs only demonstrate that very fact - that by nature there is something wrong with us. This is not how it was at the beginning. God made man perfect and upright, but it was man who wanted to do things His own way, and rejected his Maker. The fault is not with God, but with man who has made moral and spiritual shipwreck.

All people in every generation and location are sinners and spiritually and morally fallen. So the issue is not that God will judge us on the account if we believe the Bible or not, or if we even believe in Jesus Christ or not - He judges all on the account of our sin - if sin has been justly dealt with, if it has been justly forgiven. If it has not - i.e. if the person appears before God in his current guilty condition, then God as a just Judge must punish the person who has broken His Law.

This is the very reason that Jesus Christ was promised by God from the beginning of time, and then throughout the Old Testament that He would come to die in the place of sinners. This is how God demonstrates His love toward a sinful and fallen world. Those who trust only Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and admit and turn away from the sins. The birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was foretold hundreds and thousands of years before His coming. There is only One perfect person who is the Son of God, who died for our sins - if we reject that, then we continue with our guilt of sin, and have to come under the just sentence of God, which will be eternal ruin of our souls in Hell. May God lead the readers to see this truth.

God made man perfect and upright, but it was man who wanted to do things His own way, and rejected his Maker

With respect, If God made man, who made God? A trip to the natural History museum is enough proof for me as to how man was created.

If it has not - i.e. if the person appears before God in his current guilty condition, then God as a just Judge must punish the person who has broken His Law

"Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

'Quote me no quotes' was heard to be quoted.
.
Especially from those 'Books' that those varied bearded and besandalled peoples flourish at us in that threatening way.
.
Quotes from books written by humankind prove nothing , on either side of the argument.

Come out from behind the quotes and the rhetoric, Christians, and give a simple answer to my questions about Hell, please. Please?

wayneo wrote:

Bill Taxpayer wrote: Marriage is a legal status, so cannot be dictated by the church - it really is none of their business. I'm glad there are laws now that protect people against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and so on. Mr Simpson and his like should be prosecuted for inciting homophobia.

Interesting that you left out discrimination based on religious beliefs Bill, our own Constitution does exactly that albeit against the Papists.

People don't choose to be gay or straight, male or female, black or white. People do choose to be Christian. If people want to live that way and believe all that stuff, that's up to them, but don't try to enforce your ways on others. Christians have no right to expect special treatment or exceptions to the law based on their beliefs,.
There are thankfully laws that protect people from discrimination and that applies to Christians as well as other hate preachers.

Yes; what really galls is the obvious fear and hatred, only thinly disguised by careful, conventional courtesy and a wall of rhetoric and quotations; very disturbing indeed. "Truth"? If it`s an absolute then it`s unspeakable, and will never be found in the pages of any book, however "holy". Christ himself clearly knew this, and rightly attempted no reply - because none possible - when questioned about it by Pilate.

Bill Taxpayer wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Bill Taxpayer wrote: Marriage is a legal status, so cannot be dictated by the church - it really is none of their business. I'm glad there are laws now that protect people against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and so on. Mr Simpson and his like should be prosecuted for inciting homophobia.

Interesting that you left out discrimination based on religious beliefs Bill, our own Constitution does exactly that albeit against the Papists.

People don't choose to be gay or straight, male or female, black or white. People do choose to be Christian. If people want to live that way and believe all that stuff, that's up to them, but don't try to enforce your ways on others. Christians have no right to expect special treatment or exceptions to the law based on their beliefs,.
There are thankfully laws that protect people from discrimination and that applies to Christians as well as other hate preachers.

One could equally apply "don't try to enforce your ways on others" to those who are religiousI'm afraid you are very wrong about Christians not having a right to expect special treatment, our laws, Judges, head of State all, are subservient to the Christian faith and to God, whatever God is.

But, but, but, but .........
.
These preachers' books and their progenitors / 'teachers' have been told to harass and pour scorn on unbelievers and to tell them how absolutely awful and evil they are. It's all in the books - so it must be true.
.
And how the unbelievers are going to be tortured and tormented for all eternity until the end of time and even beyond that. What a horrible prospect.
.
Unless of course they 'see the light' and convert to this or that religion.
.
Not 'that' religion btw otherwise we kill you now and you will go straight to Hell. The blessed killer gets to go to Heaven (allegedly) as all good believers must kill people to prove how good they are. And , of course, they are so much better than all those despicable wicked stupid unbelievers.
.
So there !!!!!
.
Actually I feel it's getting quite warm today already.

Dear dtap,

You wrote, “Your deity is malevolent indeed”. May I courteously ask you, Do you believe in justice? If you were personally wronged, say, you were beaten up in the street and robbed, would you want justice, or would you, on the basis of never being ‘judgemental’ towards others, desire that the offender escapes the consequences of his actions? Would you wish to live in a society where no punishments were ever administered?

God is a God of justice. Sin and unbelief are offences against the God of perfect justice, the God who gives to us our daily breath. All men, no matter what their creed or culture, are answerable to God for their sin, sin which by God’s grace in Christ, could have been avoided.

The Bible teaches that people reject Christ, because they prefer their sins, and do not want them exposed (John 5:19,20). Christ came as a Saviour, but He is returning to this earth to administer justice. A judicial system without punishment would be no judicial system at all.

So, yes, hell is a reality. I personally am deserving of it, because of my sin, my breaking of God’s law, but the Lord Jesus Christ, out of love for men, suffered the penalty for the sins of the world in His own Person, so that all who believe in Him might be set free from their guilt, without God’s justice in any way being impugned.

You also wrote, “Truth will never be found in the pages of any book”. But Jesus frequently said, “It is written” to enforce His teachings, as He quoted from the Old Testament : Matthew 4:7, Matthew 21:13, Matthew 26:24, Matthew 26:31, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 7:27, Luke 19:46, Luke 24:46, John 6:45. So is it your view, dear friend, that Jesus is wrong, and indeed deceitful, in all these statements of His about absolute truth being written down?

The whole Bible, Old and New Testaments, comprising written words, is inspired by the Spirit of Christ. The last book of the Bible, a collection of written words, is called “the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, He who said, “I am the Truth”.

Yours in amicable discussion,
Rev. Peter Simpson.

I think what people fail to understand is the books themeselves.

The bible is the biggest work of fiction of all time the second being the Koran on par with the Da Vinci Code. The books are put in place to control the masses at that particular time.

In the middle east some 1460 odd years ago , I am sure there was a man perhaps going by the name Mohammed, who thought...mmmmmm, not getting my way here, need to change the economics a tad, I'll make something up and go spread the word, anybody goes against my word me and my mates ....mmmm lets see, we'll kill them, (some poeple call it Scyzophrenia) Apostasy, great crime, I once believed now I ve changed my mind....ok stone the poor beggar or at least chop his head publically, what for changing your mind that you dont believe in a word of fiction, slighlty harsh me thinks, but no dear readers even today they carry out the crimes in lovely Saudi Arabia, ok get the pork thing, goes off quickly in 50 degree heat so possibly not good to eat, however in a cooler climate Maffi Mushkilla (Arabic for no problem) , Bible same as the Koran, tosh absolute tosh.......Water in to wine, yeah ok prove it to me without fermentation process and Im sold, in fact I'll bottle it and sell it, oh and while im on the subject Bread, Fishes, 5000.

So me thinks to many people have been fooled over too many years...and as Evil Ivor says....what do you think..?

Anyway, Mohammed, God, Jesus and Hitler are playing golf, Mohammed says Hitler, ''why invade Poland, why such the fuss already my life'',

God say's in her most feminine voice ''what about Russia, what was all that about'' and Jesus says in a rather camp Graham Norton way'' ok so tell me where did it all go wrong''

Hitler replies '' you are absolutly right, next time no more Mr Nice Guy''

Mick Harris wrote:
I am a retired Baptist minister and have had the wonderful privilege of preaching the gospel for over 50 years.
During those years I have seen many lives wonderfully changed by the power of God - all sorts of people; old, young; academics and 'ordinary' people; white and coloured.
All would testify to the joy of peace with God and peace in the heart, even in the midst of the great afflictions which many of them have passed through.
I have been with many on their deathbeds and have to say what John Wesley said of the early Methodists, 'Our people die well.'
No doubt many will have critical things to say about what I have written but I thank God that I can say that I have seen the fruit of what I believe in the lives of others.
Have the views which have brought forth such bitter words against Rev. Simpson brought forth such fruit?
The spirit in which he has been attacked does little justice to his many opponents whereas his courteous approach speaks volumes for the grace of God in his life.

Hi Mick,I'm glad for you and your flock that you have had nothing but postive experiences from you beliefs,but these are just your experiences, one man,who no doubt lived his life in the very sheltered position of his ministry.Many, many people do not have your opinion of the peace of god, and instead have had the scales fall from their eyes and see the harm that religion causes, not the least, as in this case, the way that people can feel justified in treating people negatively, because their god tells them that they are sinners.
I don't think the ability to 'die well' is any recommendation for a religion, surely it's how you live the one life that you have that's important. I always viewed that quote as a comment on their ability to die in servitude, either as missionaries imposing their god on the heathen, or as empirialist soldier, once again imposing their will on some poor bugger.Also there were plenty of religious folk who were out there commiting terrible sins, everything has it's balance.
I have seen the fruit of non belief, the freedom from guilt, from being judged as unworthy by people like Mr Simpson. What right does a man, and that's all he is despite his belief that he's talking on god's behalf (a tad strange by anyone's standards to believe that you know the thoughts of god).
Despite his regular use of the word polite or courteous his message is anything but, in fact most find it rather rude and as such it should be challenged at every possible opportunity.His words carry a very unpleasant, to many, message, even if he uses the word 'polite'. Kind of like using the words 'with all due respect' i.e. non at all, as a prefix.
I would also say that their are many atheists who's work has 'born good fruit' they just don't seem to shout about it so much.
As for responding in a less than gracious way, even Jesus lost his temper occaisionally.
Yours with concern.

Peter Simpson wrote:
Dear dtap, You wrote, “Your deity is malevolent indeed”. May I courteously ask you, Do you believe in justice? If you were personally wronged, say, you were beaten up in the street and robbed, would you want justice, or would you, on the basis of never being ‘judgemental’ towards others, desire that the offender escapes the consequences of his actions? Would you wish to live in a society where no punishments were ever administered? God is a God of justice. Sin and unbelief are offences against the God of perfect justice, the God who gives to us our daily breath. All men, no matter what their creed or culture, are answerable to God for their sin, sin which by God’s grace in Christ, could have been avoided. The Bible teaches that people reject Christ, because they prefer their sins, and do not want them exposed (John 5:19,20). Christ came as a Saviour, but He is returning to this earth to administer justice. A judicial system without punishment would be no judicial system at all. So, yes, hell is a reality. I personally am deserving of it, because of my sin, my breaking of God’s law, but the Lord Jesus Christ, out of love for men, suffered the penalty for the sins of the world in His own Person, so that all who believe in Him might be set free from their guilt, without God’s justice in any way being impugned. You also wrote, “Truth will never be found in the pages of any book”. But Jesus frequently said, “It is written” to enforce His teachings, as He quoted from the Old Testament : Matthew 4:7, Matthew 21:13, Matthew 26:24, Matthew 26:31, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 7:27, Luke 19:46, Luke 24:46, John 6:45. So is it your view, dear friend, that Jesus is wrong, and indeed deceitful, in all these statements of His about absolute truth being written down? The whole Bible, Old and New Testaments, comprising written words, is inspired by the Spirit of Christ. The last book of the Bible, a collection of written words, is called “the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, He who said, “I am the Truth”. Yours in amicable discussion, Rev. Peter Simpson.

Ah, that`s a little more like it; you emerge briefly from the labyrinthine convolutions of your extraordinary theology to state: "hell is a reality" . So - if my "sins" are forgiven and I enter heaven, but those of my mother are not, I could look forward to an eternity of knowing that she is suffering appalling, endless agony in that place? Sounds just lovely. Oh, and by the way, my comment was "absolute truth cannot be written down" - relative truth can be, of course; that`s a somewhat different thing, Peter. And a universe based on a judicial system...? Oh, dear.

...Actually, Peter, there is one more thing (a personal question, if you`ll forgive one) I`d love to ask you: do you feel yourself to have a sense of humour?

What the Rev ? You're 'aving a larf , aren't you ?

Dear Rev Simpson,

We've read your explanations of God dispensing justice, Jesus redeeming us, and so forth.

Could you please explain why babies die and how that fits in to your schema.

Unless I am mistaken the Reverend Simpson or one of the conservative nonconformist clerics who argue with him has experienced this in real life - if he is able to reconcile it with his Christian faith then so be it but I am inclined to feel the way you do Tom.

dtap wrote:
...Actually, Peter, there is one more thing (a personal question, if you`ll forgive one) I`d love to ask you: do you feel yourself to have a sense of humour?

I'd like the Reverend gentleman to tell us a joke - it would take a while to type it but I would love to hear it.

Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their **** one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them”.

Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them”.

Baptist Pastor wrote:
Romans 1:18-32 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them”.

Well that just about clears it all up, then...?
Though I`d still really llike to hear about hell, and just how the "saved" will enjoy their spiritual ecstasy while knowing of the agonies being endlessly suffered by their loved ones. No real or meaningful comment on that one yet...

....and I know this is a tad off -subject, but how do you folk feel about Mr.Darwin`s ideas? Oh, and while we`re there - just how old is this planet?

dtap wrote:
....and I know this is a tad off -subject, but how do you folk feel about Mr.Darwin`s ideas? Oh, and while we`re there - just how old is this planet?

Though It is right that they have a right to hold their beliefs and religion, ) I'm not sure that the prosauropods of 230,000,000 years ago were that interested in God and in addition to what Tom stated earlier, why, if according to Religious folk, Judgment day is immediately afer death, are many children borne with horrific genetic diseases, often leaving them with years of pain?

I think somewhere in the book there is likely to be an injection against asking these types of questions.

Well, given that attempts to elucidate genuine personal attitudes from these folk usually invokes naught but scriptural quotations, I suppose that if you can`t beat `em, join`em: "No-one saves us but ourselves. No-one can, and no-one may. We ourselves must walk the path. " (Gautama Buddha).

Baptist Pastor wrote:
Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them”.

Well, when you put it like that it all makes perfect sense.........:)

dtap wrote:
Well, given that attempts to elucidate genuine personal attitudes from these folk usually invokes naught but scriptural quotations, I suppose that if you can`t beat `em, join`em: "No-one saves us but ourselves. No-one can, and no-one may. We ourselves must walk the path. " (Gautama Buddha).

Very good,and he pre dates JC,make you think eh? well makes some people think, others are just a tad too certain to be doing that for themselves.

I am very apprehensive about this Heaven place.
.
What age are the people there. Are they the age they die at ? .
.
What about babies that die - do they grow up there ? Or somewhere else ?
.
Do people walk around naked as there are perhaps no seasons and everything in thermostatically controlled at 25 deg for all eternity.
.
If there are clothes , who makes them ? The little cherubs ?
.
What about flowers and things - is it always spring/summer. And what about the insects that are needed for the flowers flourish ? Or are they all everlasting or plastic blooms and trees and things.
.
Some heaven-bound people believe there is sex on demand - with a huge crowd of fenmale virgins for some men.
.
Anything for the women ? For the week-end for instance ?
.
Why have sex anyway as presumably there might be a baby boom in Heaven ? Where would they all go and who would look after them ?
.
Or perhaps everybody is sterilized on entry so the prime motivayion would be removed - so no love on first sight then ?
.
And what about the toilet facilities - men , women and other ? If there is food , presumably it will pass through everybody's digestive system and produce millions of tons of poo and urine. Where would all that go or is it recycled divinely around the heavenly site ? Or perhaps it is dispatched to Hell for them to sort out (piecework ?)
.
So many unanswered questions and so little time.

JB, I feel I should warn you that, given your frivolous attitude, St.Peter won`t be too quick stamping your passport, so I fear you`ll never find out the answers. Mock at your peril...

How many of you anti God lot got married in church, honest answers please

How many of you anti God lot got married in church, honest answers please

Lorrainej wrote:
How many of you anti God lot got married in church, honest answers please

Well, a "traditional" wedding in this country remains definable as a Betjemanesque Christian-style job, doesn`t it? It doesn`t necessarily suggest that those who partake have serious Christian convictions. And " anti God lot" ? What exactly do you mean?

J B Blackett wrote:
I am very apprehensive about this Heaven place.
.
What age are the people there. Are they the age they die at ? .
.
What about babies that die - do they grow up there ? Or somewhere else ?
.
Do people walk around naked as there are perhaps no seasons and everything in thermostatically controlled at 25 deg for all eternity.
.
If there are clothes , who makes them ? The little cherubs ?
.
What about flowers and things - is it always spring/summer. And what about the insects that are needed for the flowers flourish ? Or are they all everlasting or plastic blooms and trees and things.
.
Some heaven-bound people believe there is sex on demand - with a huge crowd of fenmale virgins for some men.
.
Anything for the women ? For the week-end for instance ?
.
Why have sex anyway as presumably there might be a baby boom in Heaven ? Where would they all go and who would look after them ?
.
Or perhaps everybody is sterilized on entry so the prime motivayion would be removed - so no love on first sight then ?
.
And what about the toilet facilities - men , women and other ? If there is food , presumably it will pass through everybody's digestive system and produce millions of tons of poo and urine. Where would all that go or is it recycled divinely around the heavenly site ? Or perhaps it is dispatched to Hell for them to sort out (piecework ?)
.
So many unanswered questions and so little time.

What frivolous ? I am serious I need answers. Now please.
.
Why will nobody answer these straight forward queries. Why the reluctance ? Especially from all 'Those in the Know'.
.
Very suspicious. Are they hiding something , is it classified or do they just not know at all ?
.
Is it because all these questions cannot be answered by 'The Book(s)' ?

J B Blackett wrote:

J B Blackett wrote: I am very apprehensive about this Heaven place. . What age are the people there. Are they the age they die at ? . . What about babies that die - do they grow up there ? Or somewhere else ? . Do people walk around naked as there are perhaps no seasons and everything in thermostatically controlled at 25 deg for all eternity. . If there are clothes , who makes them ? The little cherubs ? . What about flowers and things - is it always spring/summer. And what about the insects that are needed for the flowers flourish ? Or are they all everlasting or plastic blooms and trees and things. . Some heaven-bound people believe there is sex on demand - with a huge crowd of fenmale virgins for some men. . Anything for the women ? For the week-end for instance ? . Why have sex anyway as presumably there might be a baby boom in Heaven ? Where would they all go and who would look after them ? . Or perhaps everybody is sterilized on entry so the prime motivayion would be removed - so no love on first sight then ? . And what about the toilet facilities - men , women and other ? If there is food , presumably it will pass through everybody's digestive system and produce millions of tons of poo and urine. Where would all that go or is it recycled divinely around the heavenly site ? Or perhaps it is dispatched to Hell for them to sort out (piecework ?) . So many unanswered questions and so little time.

What frivolous ? I am serious I need answers. Now please. . Why will nobody answer these straight forward queries. Why the reluctance ? Especially from all 'Those in the Know'. . Very suspicious. Are they hiding something , is it classified or do they just not know at all ? . Is it because all these questions cannot be answered by 'The Book(s)' ?

JB, Id love to help you, but - as you may have surmised - I can`t number myself among "Those in the know" . I`m lost, I`m guessing - but I`m hopeful.

Anti God, just that. And the question I asked was who got married in Church, very simple question

sai-diva wrote:

dtap wrote:
Well, given that attempts to elucidate genuine personal attitudes from these folk usually invokes naught but scriptural quotations, I suppose that if you can`t beat `em, join`em: "No-one saves us but ourselves. No-one can, and no-one may. We ourselves must walk the path. " (Gautama Buddha).

Very good,and he pre dates JC,make you think eh? well makes some people think, others are just a tad too certain to be doing that for themselves.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

John 8:56–58 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lorrainej wrote:
Anti God, just that. And the question I asked was who got married in Church, very simple question

Sure one can only be anti something they know it to exist in the first place, faith does not provide that proof.
!
In answer to your question however, my 'marriage' is sui juris.

Lorrainej wrote:
Anti God, just that. And the question I asked was who got married in Church, very simple question

But what does "AntiGod" mean - you really can`t extrapolte further without defining your context - can you? Which particular definition of "God" are we - or are we not - defining? And, pray tell, what does this really have to do with the feelings of our alleged creator-deity toward homosexuality? Your question carries connotations which are, in fact, far from "simple" .

Baptist Pastor wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

dtap wrote: Well, given that attempts to elucidate genuine personal attitudes from these folk usually invokes naught but scriptural quotations, I suppose that if you can`t beat `em, join`em: "No-one saves us but ourselves. No-one can, and no-one may. We ourselves must walk the path. " (Gautama Buddha).

Very good,and he pre dates JC,make you think eh? well makes some people think, others are just a tad too certain to be doing that for themselves.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. John 8:56–58 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Yes, Mr.Pastor: "Before Abraham, I AM". Pre-dates - and post - dates - all beliefs and all religions. Even Buddhism! Timeless.

I`m really sorry to bore you nice Christian folks with this one again, but I haven`t had a real answer yet
to my previously posed enquiries concerning my mother and the existence of "Hell" . And Mr. Pastor; are you merely a metaphor, or is there a personality lurking behind the quotations? Hello? Let`s talk!

dtap wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
Anti God, just that. And the question I asked was who got married in Church, very simple question

But what does "AntiGod" mean - you really can`t extrapolte further without defining your context - can you? Which particular definition of "God" are we - or are we not - defining? And, pray tell, what does this really have to do with the feelings of our alleged creator-deity toward homosexuality? Your question carries connotations which are, in fact, far from "simple" .

Is that the best you can do. Pathetic

Lorrainej wrote:

dtap wrote:

Lorrainej wrote: Anti God, just that. And the question I asked was who got married in Church, very simple question

But what does "AntiGod" mean - you really can`t extrapolte further without defining your context - can you? Which particular definition of "God" are we - or are we not - defining? And, pray tell, what does this really have to do with the feelings of our alleged creator-deity toward homosexuality? Your question carries connotations which are, in fact, far from "simple" .

Is that the best you can do. Pathetic

No, it`s a long way from "best" , thanks - but I`m listening. Extrapolate. Please.

dtap wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

dtap wrote:

Lorrainej wrote: Anti God, just that. And the question I asked was who got married in Church, very simple question

But what does "AntiGod" mean - you really can`t extrapolte further without defining your context - can you? Which particular definition of "God" are we - or are we not - defining? And, pray tell, what does this really have to do with the feelings of our alleged creator-deity toward homosexuality? Your question carries connotations which are, in fact, far from "simple" .

Is that the best you can do. Pathetic

No, it`s a long way from "best" , thanks - but I`m listening. Extrapolate. Please.

If the question is too difficult, I appologise.

Lorrainej wrote:

dtap wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

dtap wrote:

Lorrainej wrote: Anti God, just that. And the question I asked was who got married in Church, very simple question

But what does "AntiGod" mean - you really can`t extrapolte further without defining your context - can you? Which particular definition of "God" are we - or are we not - defining? And, pray tell, what does this really have to do with the feelings of our alleged creator-deity toward homosexuality? Your question carries connotations which are, in fact, far from "simple" .

Is that the best you can do. Pathetic

No, it`s a long way from "best" , thanks - but I`m listening. Extrapolate. Please.

If the question is too difficult, I appologise.

No need for apologies; if you really are fascinated by whether or not I got married in a church then , sure, i`m happy to answer: "no". But again i ask you; what does this personal query really have to do with the broader questions floating about here?

I wouldn't say fascinated, it was a simple question, but thanks for your simple answer of no.

It would, imo, seem that all the ill-mannered bigoted spiteful people are on God's side. Would you credit it ?
.
What a strange contradictory juxtaposition of attitudes. Perhaps God (and his followers) are not as nice as some people say they are.
.
So I'm getting worried again. And God (allegedly) threw Lucifer out of Heaven because he was very naughty.
.
If God hadn't done that would there be no Hell ?
.
So where did Adam and Eve go when they were evicted from Eden ? The bible gives no clue ; just 'not Eden' then.
.
Or perhaps Hell wasn't created at that time. Or was it ? So why didn't God sent them there ?
.
More questions with no answers , iwa. It's all beyond me , even with a very wide-ranging education , I'm afraid. Beyond human ken.

I don’t go to Church, and have never been Christened. I do however believe that the Bible is a very powerful book, and many people have different opinions and interpretations of it, as do I. The story in this instance covers The Rev Peter Simpsons interpretations, if he didn’t have the strength of his convictions, I’m sure he would have downed tools long ago. Without this strength of conviction he would be of no use to his Parishioners, and feel sure they would have plenty to say. Jesus was born some 2000 years ago, that’s quite a long time ago, and still hitting the headlines. I have to say I agree with The Rev Simpson on this, surely if you don’t believe what the bible says why on earth would anybody want to get married in Church, either heterosexual or otherwise. I did ask if any of the posters on this story had got Married in Church, only one had the balls to answer. It appear that many people use the Church when it suits them, the easiest thing to do is leave the Church to the people that need it.

Actually, there are a lot of christians, regular church goers, who do not take the bible as literally as the Reverend Simpson and his friends. They tend to add a historical and cultural context to what it says and recognise that we are not members of a small nomadic tribe exiled in a desert.

More to the point, they don't consider that legislation by the government to impose their own values on everyone else is the right thing to do - which is what the original story at the top of the page suggests that the Rev Simpson thinks should happen.

For the record, as Ms J seems to thinks it is an important factor to validate ones views, I don't use churches - wycombe register office did a very nice job when I got married. I've been to one or two other peoples weddings in churches, but never really felt comfortable about it; but you put yourself out for your friends.

For that matter, I don't use Tesco either.

Lorrainej, The Bible`s certainly a powerful book; a blend of history, myth, ancient desert law (and lore), mysticism, and of course opinion, written and translated by widely disparate people informed and guided down the years by a variety of agendas. It has shaped our thoughts and our language, and contains passages of rare poetic beauty, some of them surprisingly erotic. But as far as marriage is concerned, many who wish for what we today still call a "traditional" wedding will opt for a church one, regardless of their religious convictions - it`s the tradition they seek, not the religion itself.

dtap wrote:
I`m really sorry to bore you nice Christian folks with this one again, but I haven`t had a real answer yet
to my previously posed enquiries concerning my mother and the existence of "Hell" . And Mr. Pastor; are you merely a metaphor, or is there a personality lurking behind the quotations? Hello? Let`s talk!

Dear Sir/Madam, thank you very much for your important questions regarding God.
I am sorry but I did not have time yesterday to respond as it was quite a busy day yesterday at Church.

Please understand in order to answer your questions about God I must quote directly from His Word.

1) Regarding the origin of Holy Scripture

2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"

Regarding mans sin.
Romans 8:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

Psalm 58:3 3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies"

Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"

Romans 6:26 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"

Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 6:23 says "For the wages of sin is death"

Isaiah 59:2 says "But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God"

Can God "overlook" anyone's sin? The answer in His Word is always "no", because if He did, He would not be a pure and Holy God. God is both holy and just, and is bound by His very nature to punish our sin.

Yet He is also Sovereign, and in that nature of His Sovereignty He has so decreed to save people. We may ask "Do not all people really deserve to be saved" The answer of course is "no one deserves to be saved"

In other words God saves people not because there is or was, anything good, worthy or commendable in them at all, but rather they are just like all other people - sinners!

The Bible says the Lord Jesus "came to save sinners" and that He "came to call the unrighteous" those that humbly see that they have offended a Holy God.

In other words He did not come to save those that "suppose" that they are "good enough", the "supposed righteous" or to put it another way "the self righteous", and self deceived. He came to save unrighteous sinners.

We may ask "how can God condemn the sin of such people and yet still pardon them in love and mercy?"

The Bible makes this matter abundantly clear from beginning to the end and especially in:-

So what should we do?

God says in Isaiah 55:6"Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near"

But what If we do nothing? - Hell
John 3:36 says "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”

Regarding Salvation In Christ

John 3: 5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

Romans 8:7 "the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be"

John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father"

dtap wrote:
....and I know this is a tad off -subject, but how do you folk feel about Mr.Darwin`s ideas? Oh, and while we`re there - just how old is this planet?

Dear DTAP

Scientists will tell you by their own laws of physics that matter can neither be created nor destroyed and that matter just changes shape - from one thing to the other.
So Scientists by virtue of their own laws and principles in reality have forever barred themselves from ever being able to explain the existence of the universe.

Furthermore all processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system.
This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics and The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed and it tends to move from order to disorder how did it get here?

Your body has seven major organs that are required to give you life and to function. The eye needs the brain to see. The kidney needs the heart and so on.
One has to ask how in the world could those organs ever come together by random - chance?

There is only one answer Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

You postulate "explanations" , as indeed followers of monotheistic belief systems usually do (though I do prefer mysteries, they`re far more exciting) - but it`s not an "either/or" situation; neither by "chance" did we arrive where we are, nor by the actions of an external designer, the "watchmaker in the sky" . It`s rather more profound (and in many ways, delightfully mysterious) than that, I`m afraid. Evolving via natural selection is certainly in no way a matter of "chance" - the precise opposite is true. Oh, I too can quote scriptures (from religious traditions from around the world) which appear to validate any number of viewpoints, though I`m much more interested in hearing personal ideas and interpretations; but I`ll tell you this: if this infinite, endlessly mutable field of extraordinary energy which we call the universe is actually based - as mediaeval folk believed - on something which more resembles a Borstal or Correctional Facility of some kind, then I`ll grant you I might be in a spot of bother when I shuffle off this mortal coil; however, seeing the attitudes and beliefs of fundamentalists, it`s a chance I`m entirely happy to take, thanks.

Baptist Pastor wrote:

dtap wrote:
....and I know this is a tad off -subject, but how do you folk feel about Mr.Darwin`s ideas? Oh, and while we`re there - just how old is this planet?

Dear DTAP

Scientists will tell you by their own laws of physics that matter can neither be created nor destroyed and that matter just changes shape - from one thing to the other.
So Scientists by virtue of their own laws and principles in reality have forever barred themselves from ever being able to explain the existence of the universe.

Furthermore all processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system.
This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics and The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed and it tends to move from order to disorder how did it get here?

Your body has seven major organs that are required to give you life and to function. The eye needs the brain to see. The kidney needs the heart and so on.
One has to ask how in the world could those organs ever come together by random - chance?

There is only one answer Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

Who or what created God then?

wayneo wrote:

Baptist Pastor wrote:

dtap wrote: ....and I know this is a tad off -subject, but how do you folk feel about Mr.Darwin`s ideas? Oh, and while we`re there - just how old is this planet?

Dear DTAP Scientists will tell you by their own laws of physics that matter can neither be created nor destroyed and that matter just changes shape - from one thing to the other. So Scientists by virtue of their own laws and principles in reality have forever barred themselves from ever being able to explain the existence of the universe. Furthermore all processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics and The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed and it tends to move from order to disorder how did it get here? Your body has seven major organs that are required to give you life and to function. The eye needs the brain to see. The kidney needs the heart and so on. One has to ask how in the world could those organs ever come together by random - chance? There is only one answer Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

Who or what created God then?

Yes; if you postulate a creator -god, you must of course bring into question the likelihood, or at least, possibility, of the creator`s creator, and so on - though no doubt proponents of fundamentalist monotheism will point you toward a quotation, rather than an intuition or explanation of this philosophical problem. Anyone, as I`ve pointed out, can bandy quotations, obscure or otherwise. I don`t think you`re going to squeeze much juice out of this one!

:-) This reminds me of "Turtles all the way down" - which has been attributed to a number of sources, listed here http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Turtles_all
_the_way_down

And, I'd suggest that Baptist Pastor buys a more up-to-date Physics text book

tom.marlow2 wrote:
:-) This reminds me of "Turtles all the way down" - which has been attributed to a number of sources, listed here http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Turtles_all

_the_way_down

Very interesting link.

wayneo wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
:-) This reminds me of "Turtles all the way down" - which has been attributed to a number of sources, listed here http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Turtles_all


_the_way_down

Very interesting link.

Well its just a very easy to visualise example of the regression problem.

dtap wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Baptist Pastor wrote:

dtap wrote: ....and I know this is a tad off -subject, but how do you folk feel about Mr.Darwin`s ideas? Oh, and while we`re there - just how old is this planet?

Dear DTAP Scientists will tell you by their own laws of physics that matter can neither be created nor destroyed and that matter just changes shape - from one thing to the other. So Scientists by virtue of their own laws and principles in reality have forever barred themselves from ever being able to explain the existence of the universe. Furthermore all processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics and The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed and it tends to move from order to disorder how did it get here? Your body has seven major organs that are required to give you life and to function. The eye needs the brain to see. The kidney needs the heart and so on. One has to ask how in the world could those organs ever come together by random - chance? There is only one answer Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

Who or what created God then?

Yes; if you postulate a creator -god, you must of course bring into question the likelihood, or at least, possibility, of the creator`s creator, and so on - though no doubt proponents of fundamentalist monotheism will point you toward a quotation, rather than an intuition or explanation of this philosophical problem. Anyone, as I`ve pointed out, can bandy quotations, obscure or otherwise. I don`t think you`re going to squeeze much juice out of this one!

Dear Dtap

Thank you for your reply, however I was hoping for a reply to the question.
Science is certainly not philosophy, neither is belief in God who made all things out of nothing.
You asked me “who made God” the Bible makes plain that no one made God. Surely He would not be God - if someone made HIM , He says “I AM THAT I AM” God is self existent and not created.
Science as you have correctly pointed out will always need to modify it's theories, and come out with new books, because it still can not explain how all this mass of matter in the universe came out of nothing.
With due respect scientists still want to know the answer to the age old question "who made God" - I think that it is rather incongruous, when science can not explain how all matter came from nothing.

Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge"

Also have you ever wondered why we read in the Bible that the earth is described as a sphere before man actually discovered it was a sphere?
Have you ever wondered why all the prophesies centuries before Christ came, actually were fulfilled.
Also have you ever considered the bombardier beetle, and wondered why it never self exploded if it actually evolved from something else?
"Dr. Wermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an inhibitor. The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.
"Whenever our beetle friend is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an antiinhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.
"Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish "yes," but a brief consideration of this opinion will reveal its preposterous nature.
"According to evolutionary "thinking" there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually. we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand. if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, let us assume that our little beetle friend somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the antiinhibitor must he added to the solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage until finally, the anti inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the antiinhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah yes. he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their new found powers.
"But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to make perfect sense and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense at all, and to propose that the entire defence system evolved all at once is astronomically improbable, if not impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder."
(Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp. 78-79, Baker Book House, 1983)
I write out of sincere concern for homosexuals and lesbians. The original discussion has been over concern about same sex marriage.
I don’t say this to be disrespectful but, it doesn’t take a scientist to know and see that homosexuality is not the natural order of humans. Homosexuality goes against all procreation laws and is actually dangerous and counterproductive to the human family and race.

I hope that you understand that I write because I am deeply concerned with the way society is heading, not only with homosexuality but with drugs, violence and so on.

God has said that He will judge all sin including homosexuality.
There is however forgiveness in Jesus Christ, to them that repent and trust in Him.

Furthermore God is able to give all that come to Christ a really completely new life.
The trouble is many people don't want that new life, because they want their sin rather than to submit to God.

God will judge all men one day. The difference is Christians have turned to God in repentance and faith in Christ.

I say this to encourage you, but I have seen God change the lives of liars, adulterers, thieves, wife, beaters, drug addicts, paedophiles, bullies, thugs and so on.
Many of us Christians were guilty of these very things

2 Peter 3- 7
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men"

For the benefit of anyone who might be fooled into thinking that although Baptist Pastor has no understanding of modern physics, he might know something about evolutionary biology, I recommend a quick skim through http://www.talkorigi
ns.org/faqs/bombardi
er.html which unravels a lot of the bogosity around the bombardier beetle

BP, it`s not about tying yourself in knots trying to "answer questions" - which in fact you`ve manifestly failed to do, regarding the age of our planet and your opinion of Mr. Darwin. Nor is is true that humanity is sinking fast into a hole of sin and despair (people are about the same as they`ve been for thousands of years; evolution takes a long time to make its changes). Tell you what; I`ll drop all the scriptural references at my fingertips, you drop those at yours, and let`s discuss what you believe to be hell - and also my earlier questions to you. How will Christians enjoy heaven whilst their loved ones are burning? Or is this not the case? Let`s step outside the box. Both of us.

I`ve just noticed the line "intelligent foresight and planning" - and whence this "sheepish yes " from evolutionists? BP, this amazing, explosive, beautiful cosmos arises simultaneously, endlessly changing as its infinite fields of energy merge and join and separate again in an infinite dance. It`s not a building site with a foreman, nor is it, as I said earlier, a Correctional Facility with a scary Governor. It`s a dance, not a courtroom trial, and we are all the I AM of which you speak, in an eternal present moment.

Hi dtap,I think that you are flogging a dead'n in your attempts to get BP to think outside the box, all of his answers are contained in just one version of one book. Free thinking is not contained therein, in fact modern language isn't in there either, have you noticed how they rely heavily on the thou's and thee's of the St. James' version, it's like stepping back 400 years in so many ways.
If they rely so heavily on this one book it absolves them of any personal responsibility, so no matter how much hurt or pain their utterances cause, they can say that it's not their fault as they are right because the bible/god tells them so.

Also, it astounds me how much emphasis is put, by most of the major religions,on sex and male genitalia, and where we put our 'private parts' it's like they're obsessed. According to them our sexual behaviour could bring down civilisation!I bet they don't have sex in heaven, or drink or crack dirty jokes, not a good advert eh?
You can however sit around looking pious, judging the behaviour of others, tutting when they don't measure up to your standards, and looking smug when you are given a black mark and sent to eternal suffering.All the while saying that you are doing it with 'love and concern' for their souls
Sorry if i sound like I'm taking the mickey, but I am, it's what they deserve.

"Homosexuality is dangerous" . Says it all, no? No wonder they seem to have such underdeveloped senses of humour; they inhabit a world made by a vengeful and invisible cosmic policeman, and can only hope that they`ll not end up in endless agony after their physical deaths. I`d be pretty frightened myself, to say the least.

Baptist Pastor wrote:

dtap wrote:
....and I know this is a tad off -subject, but how do you folk feel about Mr.Darwin`s ideas? Oh, and while we`re there - just how old is this planet?

Dear DTAP

Scientists will tell you by their own laws of physics that matter can neither be created nor destroyed and that matter just changes shape - from one thing to the other.
So Scientists by virtue of their own laws and principles in reality have forever barred themselves from ever being able to explain the existence of the universe.

Furthermore all processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system.
This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics and The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed and it tends to move from order to disorder how did it get here?

Your body has seven major organs that are required to give you life and to function. The eye needs the brain to see. The kidney needs the heart and so on.
One has to ask how in the world could those organs ever come together by random - chance?

There is only one answer Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

ahem... the 2nd law of thermodynamics... you missed the all-important part which stipulates that it applies to a closed system

which closed system are you basing your model on exactly?

neither 'our world' nor 'a person' qualify as closed systems

as for the 'miracle' of life: think for a second how many planets must exist in the universe... that's a LOT of planets... whilst it seems unlikely that life would exist elsewhere in the universe, billions of light years (possibly even billions of years) away, some other alien civilisation is thinking exactly the same thing, wondering why they're special, why they are seemingly alone in the universe...

the answer is quite neat: they're *not* special... their existence seems remarkable only because they are there to experience it

what are the chances of us finding life on another planet? pretty much zero... at least in any of our lives... what are the chances of life existing or having existed at some point on another planet, somewhere in the far-flung reaches of the universe? I would be happy to suggest (almost) 100%

its like the huge coincidences you hear about - people call it fate, or a miracle... no, its just one coincidental event in all of the billion daily events across the globe its whether you witness something first-hand or not which makes it seem miraculous

*edit:

oh, I forgot to tie my argument back into evolution... the evolution of the eye is observable across myriad species on this planet, from photosensitive dots, able only to discern light from dark, to full-colour optical systems such as our own

evolution... its great :)

Good point, well put, KentP. Gosh, you all must be so bored of me asking this, but what about my mother burning in hell? Why/how would I wish to be in heaven simultaneously? How could this in any way be "heavenly" ? What a shocking nightmare...

what I don't get is that if Jesus died for our sins, how come we have to believe in him at all to qualify for Heaven... surely he's got us covered...?

KentP wrote:
what I don't get is that if Jesus died for our sins, how come we have to believe in him at all to qualify for Heaven... surely he's got us covered...?

You`re opening up a can of theological worms there! And, of course, how does one believe? This is clearly a very different style of "belief" to believing, say, that my house is still standing at this moment. Perhaps, like the Jesuit mystic Teilhard de Chardin, they "believe because it is absurd"....?

a lot of the 'belief' demonstrated here seems merely to stretch to "its true because this book says it is" (or commonly "here is a wall of text from a book because I can't be bothered to write out my own reasoned opinion")

I am going to take everything written in the books of Iain M Banks as gospel, and henceforth, I shall start preaching the values of The Culture

on a similar matter, The Book of Dave by Will Self is well worth a read :)

dtap wrote:
BP, it`s not about tying yourself in knots trying to "answer questions" - which in fact you`ve manifestly failed to do, regarding the age of our planet and your opinion of Mr. Darwin. Nor is is true that humanity is sinking fast into a hole of sin and despair (people are about the same as they`ve been for thousands of years; evolution takes a long time to make its changes). Tell you what; I`ll drop all the scriptural references at my fingertips, you drop those at yours, and let`s discuss what you believe to be hell - and also my earlier questions to you. How will Christians enjoy heaven whilst their loved ones are burning? Or is this not the case? Let`s step outside the box. Both of us.

Dear Dtap

Thank you for your comments. Sir/Madam with all due respect, though I am not in any box.

I quote the Bible because I believe that it is true and without error and therefore truth does not confine me.
The Lord Jesus Christ said that he is “the way the truth and the life” and he said that “the truth” (being He) shall set us free.
Christ has set us free from the power dominion and reign of sin. He can do the same for others too.

John 8:34 “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed"

As we have said amongst many things homosexuality is a sin. I believe the Word of God to be true, and it will continue to prove to be 100% accurate until the coming of Christ, when all men will be judged. God has said that He will judge all sin.

I reiterate there is however forgiveness in Jesus Christ, to them that repent and trust in Him.

I believe the earth to be around 6,000 years old. I would recommend reading “Darwin”s Black” box by Michael J. Behe (he is not a Christian by the way) Charles Darwin didn’t want to believe in God.

As far as God has said man is without excuse with regards to believing in creation. Men reist the truth because they “suppress (or hold down) the truth in unrighteousness”.

Jesus also said that the reason men don’t want to come and repent and believe in him is they love their sin
John 3:19 “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved”

To answer your question on Hell:-
Hell is a place where unsaved men will become more sinful and loathsome to themselves and to others. They will never truly repent of their sins in hell, because men have a fallen depraved nature, being salves to sin.

We read that even when God sentences sinners to judgement for what they have done they will only curse God. Men hate God, and so there will be no true repentance toward God, whats worse is that man will remain a slave to sin forever rather than honour God and love his fellow creature as he should.
People will increase as liars, be greater thieves, be greater haters, and be even more sexually perverse.
In short it is a place of eternal punishment, where men are left in their sins and will be punished for there sins because they refused to come to Christ for forgiveness and eternal life now.

Your question: How will Christians enjoy heaven whilst their loved ones are burning?
The Bible uses terms like “fire” and “burning” gnashing of teach etc to express the sheer anguish of men, perhaps included in this is pain of conscience and of heart when you remember those times when you ignored sin and refused to repent.

Are these real flames that disintegrate people? No! because it is eternal punishment and not annihilation. Put simply those who will go to hell will be in anguish because they will have their just reward, sin and no favour of God and they will continue to perish getting eternally worse in their sin.

Men will become more loathsome to themselves and others. There will be no love or forgiveness, toward each other, people will become more selfish, there will be no love for each other in hell, and there will be no kindness of people in hell.

Dear friend, Jesus Christ came to do what we could not do for ourselves, to love and hour God and fellow men perfectly. That by faith in his life death and substitutionary work we will have eternal life in Him.

This fallen world is not as bad as it could be.
Without the ordering and preserving influences that God has effected through the lives of His people who have been changed by His grace this world would be a lot, worse.

If you study History you will soon discover that it was Christians that have changed entire villages communities and nations.

Slavery or emancipation, was abolished through men like William Wilberforce and John Newton. These things ought to remind you that it has been Christians that have made a difference to mankind. David Livingstone, George Muller, Florence Knightingale and so on.

Be sure of it, nations and men left to their own devices, without morals slowly spiral into horrific corruption, vileness and perversion. I have lived in many countries around the world in my life, Africa south east Asia, the US and can testify that where God is not loved and honoured men become vile. Hell itself will become more unbearable, vile and bitter by sinful men themselves.
And they will be in the presence of an angry God. We are told that in some way God’s anger will be there.

Friend sin never brings honour but shame. Adultery brings a man shame in society, lying brings a man shame in society, dishonesty and disloyalty brings a man shame in his family and society, homosexuality brings a man shame – think how can that man look his son in the face.

I know of a man that has recently left his wife and children for another man – what heartache shame and pain he has brought to himself and his dear family.

Again I say this to encourage all that I have really seen God change the lives of liars, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, wife beaters, drug addicts, paedophiles, bullies, thugs and so on. Many of us Christians were guilty of these very things.

This is why today is the day of salvation

2 Peter 3- 7 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men"

I think I have said all that I can and should let others say something now - thank you for your time.
Respectfully yours, the Baptist Pastor

KentP wrote:
a lot of the 'belief' demonstrated here seems merely to stretch to "its true because this book says it is" (or commonly "here is a wall of text from a book because I can't be bothered to write out my own reasoned opinion") I am going to take everything written in the books of Iain M Banks as gospel, and henceforth, I shall start preaching the values of The Culture on a similar matter, The Book of Dave by Will Self is well worth a read :)

Good luck with your new religion, and thanks for the tip, I`d heard the Self book was quite good. The fact is, if only one or two people professed the beliefs demonstrated here of late, they`d fairly soon be sectioned - but if you can persuade a million or so that it`s true, it becomes a religion and starts demanding respect, however wacky. I tell you what - I`ll try and kickstart a belief in the Flying Invisible Unicorns, using, of course, the Book of Unicorn as my guide, and I`ll race you to be the first to attract one million believers. We may as well pass the time usefully while we`re waiting for the explanations concerning hell and my mother.

Thanks, BP, but my question stands unanswered. Remember - the one about my mother? And not only her, but all the Buddhists, Jews, gays, atheists, etc? And this a god of love...shame on you.

Hey dtap, at least you got a response from the pastor :(

dear BP, I don't have time to respond to all of your points atm, but could you please answer me a few of the more salient points.
You say that you believe the bible to be true and without error, whilst I can accept that is your belief, it does not make it true for other people, in other words, just you believe something to be true, this doesn't make so.Do You really think that all muslims, jews, non xtians gays are going to be condemned in the ways you have stated?
Why the hang up with where men put their willies? Is your god sat up there every bed time checking. Do you not think that your equating homosexuality with lying thieving and hating to be ever so sightly bigoted. Homosexuals are born that way (or created?) people who lie and cheat choose to do so, or are you of the opinion that homosexuals can be 'cured'?
I notice that you put homosexuals at the same level as paedophiles, I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are on that one so I wont even go there, but I would imagine legally you are on pretty thin ice.
Darwin believed in god, he questioned his faith after the death of his daughter.
I know of a man who left his family to be with another woman, this is not just a 'gay' thing. I also know of men and women who have remarried after such acts, does this make their union any less valid. I have also known of people who have left their spouses to join various churches, think of the anguish that causes, is that ok as they felt that they had been called by god?
And I'll say again, that most of the slave owners were fine upstanding believers, most of the soldiers, most of the exploiters, before the reformers came along.Maybe their religion had evolved from one that believed that slave ownership was acceptable to one that didn't.
I agree that the victorians did change entire villages, towns even whole countries, but it's a mighty ego that says it was all for the good. If you believe imposing an alien way of life onto a native culture, take a look at the damage done in Australia. New Zealand, N.America. Children taken away from parents, Adults treated as slaves or worse as cattle,to be used all by fine men who no doubt regarded themselves as god fearing xtians.
You seem to have a very low opinion of the human race,feeling as guilty as you are. Do you not think that guilt is such a destructive emotion?
I look forward to your response, One Love.

KentP wrote:
Hey dtap, at least you got a response from the pastor :(

Well, I think he`s accustomed to preaching, if not "responding". These folk have taken great pains to paint themselves into a corner, and then to claim it is "freedom"... Oh, and I`ve got two Unicornists already, by the way.

dtap wrote:

KentP wrote:
what I don't get is that if Jesus died for our sins, how come we have to believe in him at all to qualify for Heaven... surely he's got us covered...?

You`re opening up a can of theological worms there! And, of course, how does one believe? This is clearly a very different style of "belief" to believing, say, that my house is still standing at this moment. Perhaps, like the Jesuit mystic Teilhard de Chardin, they "believe because it is absurd"....?

Dtap and Kentp

Sir/Madam if you don’t mind me explaining it's actually quite straight forward, there are no theological problems at all in this.

Some Christians may have a slightly different understanding but this is how I understand the Bible.

I gave you the Scriptural references that point to this in
John 3:5 earlier in the blog.

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jesus said "You must be born again"

You say perhaps “but people like me don't want to be born again, we want our sin and heaven".
Well that's right, men actually love their sin so much that they want sin more than God, so they choose sin over God.

And heaven is a place of holiness where Gods people are completely forgiven and will receive a sinless nature so its not a place for unforgiven.

So God leaves these unrepentant God hating sinners exactly where they want to be and they will perish in their sins.

While to others, God gives a new heart with new desires, firstly to repent and then to trust in Him for forgiveness.
Now one may assert “surely God unfair to save some and not others”

Rather let me ask it another way: Does God have to save anyone at all?
Well the answer is "no". Why should He?
You see men get exactly what they want, to live in their sin. So is God unjust not to save them? No

I myself once hated God and His Laws and I loved my sin.
You see Salvation is entirely a gift of God!

Some may object... but remember once again, just like we have presented the Gospel to you over and over again, in all of its truth, showing you forgiveness in Christ you still don't want it. You still refuse it.

You see no body wants God forgiveness and a new life left to themselves they rather want to continue in sin.

So Christ is just to save those whom he has died for and by the preaching of the Gospel and an effectual call by the new birth they come to Him for forgiveness and eternal life.

Now remember as I said these are all unworthy hell deserving sinners. So it remains all of Grace!
Undeserved and completely unmerited.
God is therefore just to punish sin and save whom He will.

Jesus said I am the Good shepherd and the Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.
The bible calls them elect (Eph 1, 1 Peter 1, Romans 1), not because they are good but because God has chosen to save them.

His sheep see themselves to be terrible sinners and they come to Him for eternal life.

And what about me BP? any chance of an answer? I'd prefer without long, oft repeated quotations, but I do notice that you have already made the point that not all xtians believe the same as you do,They have their own interpretations. Does that make their belief less valid than yours? Will they be saved. Which is your preferred version of the bible? Why is it more valid than others?I await your answer. One love :)

I'll be honest, of all the things I wanted BP to respond to, the flippant comment about Jesus having us covered wasn't high on my list... I would rather hear a rebuttal to my points on coincidence, and my clarification of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (and why it was willfully deceptive (or at the very least, ignorant) for BP to incite it).

KentP wrote:
a lot of the 'belief' demonstrated here seems merely to stretch to "its true because this book says it is" (or commonly "here is a wall of text from a book because I can't be bothered to write out my own reasoned opinion")

I am going to take everything written in the books of Iain M Banks as gospel, and henceforth, I shall start preaching the values of The Culture

on a similar matter, The Book of Dave by Will Self is well worth a read :)

If you want a nice, self-contained and internally consistent belief system, try Pastafarianism (google it)

It even explains climate change.

And you get to eat lots of noodles

dtap wrote:

KentP wrote:
Hey dtap, at least you got a response from the pastor :(

Well, I think he`s accustomed to preaching, if not "responding". These folk have taken great pains to paint themselves into a corner, and then to claim it is "freedom"... Oh, and I`ve got two Unicornists already, by the way.

well met sir, you have got the jump on me... had I realised that this would have gotten competitive, I probably would have picked a more conspicuously awesome figurehead for my religion - a flying invisible unicorn? I simply can't beat that with my cynical, secular Scotsman... :)

tom.marlow2 wrote:

KentP wrote:
a lot of the 'belief' demonstrated here seems merely to stretch to "its true because this book says it is" (or commonly "here is a wall of text from a book because I can't be bothered to write out my own reasoned opinion")

I am going to take everything written in the books of Iain M Banks as gospel, and henceforth, I shall start preaching the values of The Culture

on a similar matter, The Book of Dave by Will Self is well worth a read :)

If you want a nice, self-contained and internally consistent belief system, try Pastafarianism (google it)

It even explains climate change.

And you get to eat lots of noodles

you're preaching to the choir man... I don't need to google it :)

No, KentP, SEVERAL invisible flying unicorns - `tis written in the Book of Unicorn, and thus must be true. And I think we`ve had enough Pastorfarianism, thanks.

dtap wrote:
No, KentP, SEVERAL invisible flying unicorns - `tis written in the Book of Unicorn, and thus must be true. And I think we`ve had enough Pastorfarianism, thanks.

y'see, 'several' seems a little vague...

the first rule of creating a crazy cult is... well, "you don't talk about your crazy cult"... but the second rule is... hmm, now I think about it, the second rule is more or less the same as the first rule... the *third* rule however is "be specific; people like absolutes"

You need 10 rules

KentP wrote:

dtap wrote: No, KentP, SEVERAL invisible flying unicorns - `tis written in the Book of Unicorn, and thus must be true. And I think we`ve had enough Pastorfarianism, thanks.

y'see, 'several' seems a little vague... the first rule of creating a crazy cult is... well, "you don't talk about your crazy cult"... but the second rule is... hmm, now I think about it, the second rule is more or less the same as the first rule... the *third* rule however is "be specific; people like absolutes"

Technically, you`re probably right (though who said anything about "crazy" ?), but, as I said earlier, personally I find mysteries much more fun. Clearly, I can`t speak for everyone.

tom... I shall have a think - thankfully I've got three down already

dtap... perhaps you are right, a little bit of a mystery might be better to draw people in!

Well the first few should be related to "I am right", "don't argue with me" and "don't listen to anyone else"

Then you need 2 or three which are about things that most people do anyway - primarily about not annoying other people. It makes the whole thing sound more plausible.

... and of course, as, Rev Simpson has just reminded us elsewhere, one about when you should have a day off.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
... and of course, as, Rev Simpson has just reminded us elsewhere, one about when you should have a day off.

fantastic... I assumed the article was going to be about him and was ready to query how he could juxtapose such an opinion with the teachings of the bible - thankfully I was mistaken and he has not taken leave of his senses (?!?) after all

KentP wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
... and of course, as, Rev Simpson has just reminded us elsewhere, one about when you should have a day off.

fantastic... I assumed the article was going to be about him and was ready to query how he could juxtapose such an opinion with the teachings of the bible - thankfully I was mistaken and he has not taken leave of his senses (?!?) after all

We have sensible vicars in marlow

...still nothing?

oh well, then I shall just leave this here to back up my original point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/science-enviro
nment-17532470

I think the lions have eaten them all.

Gentlemen, fantastic, thank you so much for the larfs, ( pastorfarianism, excellent). The good pastor seems to have given up in the face of such jolly japes,thank goodness for humour eh? Shame most religions suffer from a lack of it. I must confess to feeling a little hurt as not one of my questions were answered,he preached at both of you. Do you think he's given up on my soul?

sai-diva wrote:
Gentlemen, fantastic, thank you so much for the larfs, ( pastorfarianism, excellent). The good pastor seems to have given up in the face of such jolly japes,thank goodness for humour eh? Shame most religions suffer from a lack of it. I must confess to feeling a little hurt as not one of my questions were answered,he preached at both of you. Do you think he's given up on my soul?

No, neither he nor God will ever give up on you, but it is you who must take that first step. Your profane humour and barbed and mocking remarks will serve you little when you come before Him to give account of yourself.

The vitriol heaped upon those who uphold the Bible is evidence of what the Bible has to say about mankind in its fallen state. "For the carnal mind is enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" Romans 8:7.
Those who assert that homosexuality is a genetic condition should listed to what one of their own apologists has to say. Dr Graham Willet, an Australian gay rights activist has written "I think that the idea that sexuality is genetic is ****. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment. and I think it unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say "its not our fault", as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance not concessions."
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is clean contrary to evolution. The universe is running down not advancing.
Which is the more preposterous? The Creationist who believes that the Universe, with all its intricacies was created by an all wise Creator, or the evolutionist who believes that nothing exploded and from the ensuing chaos all life has evolved by 'non-directed mutations and natural selection'.
y the way, can anybody point to an atheistic state where there wasn't brutal suppression and the violation of legitimate human rights?

Non-directed mutations and natural selection...Indeed; thus has all life evolved - explosively, dynamically, endlessly a mystery to itself. "Running down" ? "Advancing" ? Relative and thus meaningless concepts in the great and wonderful schemelessness of things! May vitriol be always heaped on the preachers of division and judgement, the believers in "sin" and the advocators of guilt; oh yes, pass the shovel, please - and can anyone point to any society where there wasn`t brutal suppression and the violation of legitimate human rights, at least at one time or another? And you know as well as I do that some of the most disgusting behaviour of humans toward humans has been orchestrated and fuelled by monotheistic religion, so don`t give me that. I`ll say this again: life isn`t a courtroom presided over by a stern judge. It`s a bizarre, beautiful, terrifying helter-skelter, and to imagine you really know what`s going on is a monstrous self-delusion. Have a nice day!

I note that dtap was unable to name one atheistic state which was not oppressive. I am not surprised for there never has been such an entity. Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot, were all evolutionists. Because they believed they were not answerable to any higher authority they slaughtered millions of their own people as well as other races.

All known mutations are harmful, some are fatal, and none of them add information to the genome. Evolution is dead in the water right there.

Life does not come from non-life and order never comes out of chaos.

The reason that dtap and others believe in evolution is because it gets rid of the judge out of the courtroom. Thomas Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', said he didn't like the idea of a judgement day, which of course was why he was such a strong advocate of evolution.

If dtap and his fellow atheists were consistent, they would not be attacking Christians for being evil since, according to atheists, there is no such thing as good or evil.

Marriage is a creation ordinance, laid down by the creator since the beginning of time. Governments have no right to interfere with this God ordained institution. According to Romans 13, governments are ordained by God to be a terror to evildoers. But what they are now doing is promoting evil and discriminating against Christians. As the Bible declares "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil."

" Life " / " non-life ". " Order "/ " chaos " . " Good " / "evil ". All sides of the very same coin. All arise mutually. All is endless change. And, as Shakespeare put it so succinctly, "Nothing is good or bad; only thinking makes it so" . And what is an "atheist" to you, exactly - a Buddhist? A Moslem? A Jew? And at what time have I declared Christians "evil " ? Bigotry, fear, guilt, judgement all have deeply negative consequences, certainly, and that is why I oppose them. And if you`d like a (very long) list of the atrocities committed by so -called Christians against their fellow man down the ages, many such lists are available. Woe unto them, indeed.

PS: Take the Inquisition as one of many examples: because the perpetrators "believed they were answerable to a higher authority" they committed acts of unimaginable barbarity to a great many people who did not share their particular view. People have frequently behaved thus (including, of course, those you list), whether for reasons of tribalism, territory or religious ideology - we are as yet, arguably, a primitive species often given to violence. In the mean time, perhaps you`d care to address a problem to which I`ve been seeking an answer here: the one concerning my mother, and how heaven could be in any way pleasant if I knew she was in hell? I`d also love to know just how old you reckon this planet to be? (Please show workings). And your assumption that humans need a harsh judge to keep them in order in life`s "courtroom" is deeply patronising and insulting to the many who well understand how to behave decently without needing a belief in an invisible cosmic policeman overseeing their every move or thought.

solafide wrote:
I note that dtap was unable to name one atheistic state which was not oppressive. I am not surprised for there never has been such an entity. Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot, were all evolutionists. Because they believed they were not answerable to any higher authority they slaughtered millions of their own people as well as other races.

All known mutations are harmful, some are fatal, and none of them add information to the genome. Evolution is dead in the water right there.

Life does not come from non-life and order never comes out of chaos.

The reason that dtap and others believe in evolution is because it gets rid of the judge out of the courtroom. Thomas Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', said he didn't like the idea of a judgement day, which of course was why he was such a strong advocate of evolution.

If dtap and his fellow atheists were consistent, they would not be attacking Christians for being evil since, according to atheists, there is no such thing as good or evil.

Marriage is a creation ordinance, laid down by the creator since the beginning of time. Governments have no right to interfere with this God ordained institution. According to Romans 13, governments are ordained by God to be a terror to evildoers. But what they are now doing is promoting evil and discriminating against Christians. As the Bible declares "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil."

I note that dtap was unable to name one atheistic state which was not oppressive.
/
This doesn't really mean anything - somewhere in the Screwtape Letters C. S. Lewis makes a comment about judging a faith on the behaviour of its adherents. There are plenty of Christian states that have been oppressive and there must be some that are atheist in everything except name that are not oppressive.
…
I am not surprised for there never has been such an entity. Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot, were all evolutionists. Because they believed they were not answerable to any higher authority they slaughtered millions of their own people as well as other races.
/
A lot of Christians have slaughtered people they regarded as ‘heretics’.
…
All known mutations are harmful, some are fatal, and none of them add information to the genome. Evolution is dead in the water right there
/
Some mutations ARE beneficial – they give us resistance to disease – why does God enable mutations like the development of resistance to antibiotics that are beneficial to microorganisms that are harmful to us?
…
Life does not come from non-life and order never comes out of chaos. The reason that dtap and others believe in evolution is because it gets rid of the judge out of the courtroom.
/
I don’t know where life started from, and the vacuum that preceded eternity and the firmament, is mind-boggling to consider but Darwin’s explanation seems more reasonable (to me at least) than the book of Genesis.

/
Thomas Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', said he didn't like the idea of a judgement day, which of course was why he was such a strong advocate of evolution.

Huxley was a painfully honest man and a good friend of the Anglican Clergyman Charles Kingsley. When Huxley's infant son Noel died Kingsley tried to offer Huxley comfort in the faith of a resurrection with Jesus but Huxley said that truth was more precious to him than gold – his whole life was one of overwork in the cause of science and to belittle this as fear of being judged harshly on Judgement Day does not reflect credit on you – what evils did Huxley’s unbelief lead him into?
…
If dtap and his fellow atheists were consistent, they would not be attacking Christians for being evil since, according to atheists, there is no such thing as good or evil.
/
HAVE they attacked Christians as being ‘evil’ ? I suppose I am an atheist or agnostic and I am unhappy with the idea that by calling the Holocaust ‘evil’ (stupid tabloid journalist’s word now anyway) or ‘wrong’ I am merely expressing a personal opinion but that does not mean that without God’s word in the Old Testament there are no moral standards at all.
/
Marriage is a creation ordinance, laid down by the creator since the beginning of time. Governments have no right to interfere with this God ordained institution. According to Romans 13, governments are ordained by God to be a terror to evildoers. But what they are now doing is promoting evil and discriminating against Christians. As the Bible declares "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil."
/
You cannot COMPEL people to share the faith you FEEL – why not respect the differences between different people – presumably your God made them that way?

So, according to dtap, quoting Shakespeare, "nothing is good or bad, only thinking makes it so." If that is a truism, then, murder, rape, thieving, etc only become good or bad if one thinks they are. It therefore follows that if one doesn't think any of these things are evil then they are all acceptable, including the holocaust. That sort of thinking is a recipe for anarchy. In truth, it is this sort of thinking that is plunging this and other nations in to chaos. Human beings, who remove the idea of God from their thinking, will always countenance evil because we are all born with a fallen, sinful nature. Therefore, they will frame laws to suit.

An atheist, by definition, is somebody who doesn't believe in any god. Muslims, Buddhists, etc, are not atheists because they believe in gods, but, in their case, gods of human invention.

You have stated that vitriol should continue to be heaped upon preachers of division and judgement. I think that indicates you think we are evil. Also, the repeated use of the word 'bigotry' is a pretty good indication that you are, to say the least, not best pleased with the stance we take.

The Inquisition was organised and run by the Roman Catholic Church, which church, at one stage banned the Bible, putting it on the index of forbidden books. In this country, people were burned at the stake for having portions of the Bible in English. A church that would do such things could hardly be Christian since what it did is clean contrary to what the Bible teaches.

You ask how you could be happy in Heaven if you knew your mother was in Hell. In Heaven we will know things from God's point of view and will be content that the Judge of all the earth always does right.

You ask how old I think the planet is. I believe it to be around six thousand years. To give the reasons why, apart from the detailed genealogies of the Bible, would take up a lot of space. I will list just a few. The amount of salt in the sea, helium in the rocks, erosion of the landmass and shrinkage of the sun. Carbon 14 , because of its particular half-life cannot be measured after just over 56,000 years. Yet, measurable amounts of C14 have been found in coal and diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old.

DNA has been extracted from fossilized dinosaurs, which were supposedly wiped out 65 million years ago. According to scientists, DNA can survive under the most favorable conditions for one hundred thousand years.

God is not a harsh judge as, you allege. He is a righteous judge. Where there is no fear of God, which the Bible declares is the beginning of wisdom, there is always a deterioration in moral standards.

I now turn to Impeturbable Lawrence. Yes, individual adherents of various faiths can behave badly but if there is a consistent trend, as is the case with atheistic states, then it is reasonable to assume it is because of their ideology.

There never has been a Christian state as such. There have been states, such as the UK, which had a strong Christian influence. Such states, though far from faultless, have been far superior compared to any atheistic state you care to mention.

I am not aware of any mutation that gives resistance to disease. Sickle Cell anaemia deters the malarial mosquito from biting the sufferer. But without treatment those with this mutation would die.

Germs do not develop resistance to antibiotics. Germs have always existed with this characteristic. When the germs with the receptors for antibiotics, which are always far more numerous, are killed off, then the resistant ones multiply. The resistant germs have lost the receptors through mutations which makes them less able to compete with the normal germs, which is why they only constitute a small fraction of the whole before the introduction of antibiotics.

If Darwin's theory, which is contrary to all observable science, seems more reasonable to you, I leave you to it. I will make this observation though. If life began with a simple cell and gradually developed into the vast array of organisms that are alive today (even more in the past) why are the transitional organisms, of which there should be millions, missing from the fossil record?

Charles Kingsley was an evolutionist and, as such, denied the faith he was ordained to preach. Thomas Huxley was involved in immoral orgies.

I agree, you cannot compel people to believe nor would a true Christian endeavour to do so. We know that to become a Christian requires a divine intervention which the Bible terms being born from above. But that's different to enforcing moral standards. Except you are an anarchist you must realize that there has to be law and it has to be enforced. For Christians, that law is summarized in the Ten Commandments. The matter at issue here is homosexuality. Is it good for society? Is promiscuity good for society. If we look at the diseases that flow from these behaviors, the answer is a resounding no. Then there are the social consequences. The breakdown of family life is already causing widespread social disorder and if homosexual marriage is allowed, then why not polygamy, incest, **** or paedophilia?

God's laws are for the good of humanity. If human beings lived according to these laws this would be a perfect world. But because we are sinful human beings we are incapable of doing so. That is why we need a saviour. But it is only when we acknowledge our sin, repent of it, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that we can be forgiven and have fellowship with a holy God.

Dear dtap,

You asked, How could someone enjoy heaven, if they knew their mother was in hell?

Most Christians have loved ones who are not believers, which is a matter of great grief to us. We do all we can in this life to witness to them, and to fulfil the loving responsibilities of our relationship to them.

However, every individual is answerable to God, and our human love for them does not exonerate them of their need personally to repent and come to Christ for salvation.

God cannot overlook His justice, nor the deliberate refusal of His mercy, continually offered and continually spurned, just because the sinner has relatives. God's justice is perfect, and in heaven the redeemed will have a perfect understanding of, and concurrence, with it.

Re your remark to solafide that human beings can behave well without "a cosmic policeman" to oversee them, may I courteously point out that this comment assumes the basic goodness of man, that he has a morally sound nature, and an innate desire to do good.

However, Christianity teaches, and empirical observation confirms, that this is not the case, but that man is sinful by nature, and what good the unbeliever does is only by the gift of God's common grace to him.

I read in the paper today of scores of drunken university students from Manchester on a P&O ferry stripping naked, overturning furniture, and making the voyage a nightmare for the rest of the passengers. They would not have done this, had they feared God.

What is atheism's answer to this kind of behaviour? These people have levels of education many in previous generations could only have dreamed of, but neither their education, nor the enlightened liberal secularism of their society, stopped them behaving so disgustingly.

If we are evolving as a species, surely man by now (after millions of years) would be faring a bit better and would have stopped committing the same old sins, as each new generation comes along.

Yours in polite discussion,
Rev. Peter Simpson.

I should know better than to get involved in these slugging contests –
‘I now turn to Impeturbable Lawrence. Yes, individual adherents of various faiths can behave badly but if there is a consistent trend, as is the case with atheistic states, then it is reasonable to assume it is because of their ideology’.
/
It is one possible explanation.
…
There never has been a Christian state as such. There have been states, such as the UK, which had a strong Christian influence. Such states, though far from faultless, have been far superior compared to any atheistic state you care to mention.
/
Being Protestant was like a part of being English until about a hundred years ago – ‘Popery’ - being Catholic was the insult used to describe the Irish and the Continental Europeans – until the 1820’s you had to be or maintain the appearance of being a member of the Anglican Church. This flawed but nonetheless greater superiority might have been the result of inferior technology for killing people – during the pre-industrial period pogroms had to be carried out on the spot without trains, gas chambers and automatically-firing weapons.

…
I am not aware of any mutation that gives resistance to disease.
/
The mutation of antibodies enabling them to resist disease is well-known (as this is a non-directional process there are also mutations that enable diseases to overcome our resistance to them). I did not realise that ‘Sickle Cell anaemia deters the malarial mosquito from biting the sufferer.’ I did not mention sickle cell anaemia but I understood – I may be wrong – that mortality statistics showed that people with sickle cell anaemia who fell ill with malaria had a single-digit percentage advantage in terms of survival, over non-sickle cell anaemia sufferers who became infected with malaria – an example of a disease that confers survival value. I don’t know how this works. I am not sure what ‘But without treatment those with this mutation would die’, means.
…
Germs do not develop resistance to antibiotics. Germs have always existed with this characteristic. When the germs with the receptors for antibiotics, which are always far more numerous, are killed off, then the resistant ones multiply. The resistant germs have lost the receptors through mutations which makes them less able to compete with the normal germs, which is why they only constitute a small fraction of the whole before the introduction of antibiotics.
/
I am not a scientist but you are surely describing a Darwinian process by which germs with an advantage in the struggle for survival manage to survive and pass on their characteristics to their progeny. (If microorganisms can have ‘progeny’.)

…
If Darwin's theory, which is contrary to all observable science, seems more reasonable to you, I leave you to it.
/
I am not sure why you say Darwin’s theory is ‘contrary to all observable science’. Even in the United States an overwhelming majority of scientists accept it in preference to Genesis or ‘Intelligent Design’ and I’m afraid it DOES provide me with a cogent, detailed, wide ranging and convincing explanation of the world I see around me that Genesis does not. Why do you imagine that 19th century scientists like Huxley or Philip Gosse lengthily wrestled with their consciences and came or failed to come to abandon the faith of their forebears, and accept the validity of Evolutionary theory, and with it the comfort of belief in an after-life? Some Victorian clergy like Baden-Powell were willing to accept Evolution with losing their belief in God.
…
I will make this observation though. If life began with a simple cell and gradually developed into the vast array of organisms that are alive today (even more in the past) why are the transitional organisms, of which there should be millions, missing from the fossil record?
/
There ARE millions of fossil species making a narrative though it is incomplete in places. We are still establishing the fossil record and parts of it (some of them have been pushed under tectonic subduction zones) have been destroyed.
…

Charles Kingsley was an evolutionist and, as such, denied the faith he was ordained to preach. Thomas Huxley was involved in immoral orgies.
/
Kingsley was true to his conscience and served the God he believed in, in spite of accepting the validity of Evolution. I have never heard that Huxley indulged in ‘immoral orgies’.
…
I agree, you cannot compel people to believe nor would a true Christian endeavour to do so. We know that to become a Christian requires a divine intervention which the Bible terms being born from above.
/
Fair enough.
…
But that's different to enforcing moral standards. Except you are an anarchist you must realize that there has to be law and it has to be enforced. For Christians, that law is summarized in the Ten Commandments.
/
I think even an enthusiastic atheist would agree with some of the Decalogue’s strictures concerning our behaviour, if not faith, but as you said above you cannot force people to believe.
…
The matter at issue here is homosexuality. Is it good for society?
/
The matter here is whether or not we should recognise homosexuality – this is a part of life, encountered amongst other animals – earlier in this debate I said (18 March)
‘Apparently one in thirteen men is gay (hence the joke about ‘statistics show there are always two queers on the pitch in a rugby match’). A lot of the world religions seem to agree that God made us and presumably intended us to reproduce by means of SEX ! but nonetheless God has ALL KINDS of hang ups about SEX! People DON’T choose their sexuality – the arrival of girls in my consciousness many years ago was not accompanied by thoughts about did I want to do it with her brother instead – I was born heterosexual. I know God is supposed to move in a mysterious way but why did He make gays in that case?’
I stick by what I said on 18 March.
… You continue,
Is promiscuity good for society.
/
But we are talking about civil partnerships not promiscuity.
…
If we look at the diseases that flow from these behaviors, the answer is a resounding no.
/
This takes us back to the ‘mutation’ remarks above – ALL sexual behaviour involving penetrative sex can cause the spread of diseases – not just gay sex – that’s why they are called Sexually Transmitted Diseases - during the original AIDS epidemic lesbians were almost untouched by the disease – something ignored at the time when US Christian Right preachers were calling it God’s judgement.
…
Then there are the social consequences. The breakdown of family life is already causing widespread social disorder and if homosexual marriage is allowed, then why not polygamy, incest, **** or paedophilia?
/
Homosexual partnerships are between consenting adults (like polygamy which has been condoned by some of the Abrahamic faiths now and in the past) and are not comparable with incest, **** or paedophilia. (I assume ‘****’ refers to something REALLY outré but obviously can’t comment on it without knowing what it is.)

…
God's laws are for the good of humanity. If human beings lived according to these laws this would be a perfect world. But because we are sinful human beings we are incapable of doing so. That is why we need a saviour. But it is only when we acknowledge our sin, repent of it, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that we can be forgiven and have fellowship with a holy God.’
/
What God’s laws are and what they are not is a matter for dispute and interpretation – we have seen this here - but thank you for attempting to share your faith with us.

My last post was of course in answer to that of 'solafide' at 10:54pm Tue 10 Apr 12, and not the one by the Reverend Peter Simpson, that followed it.

Dear Impertutbable Lawrence,

You wrote, "Until the 1820’s you had to be or maintain the appearance of being a member of the Anglican Church. This flawed but nonetheless greater superiority might have been the result of inferior technology for killing people – during the pre-industrial period pogroms had to be carried out on the spot".

As a nonconformist I have no particular desire to defend Anglican privilege, but in its Reformation foundations the Church of England was doctrinally sound, and some of its adherents have brought great blessing to this country.

For example, John and Charles Wesley, who are renowned for bringing hope and dignity to the poorer classes in the 18th century through their Gospel preaching, were Anglican ministers.

One might also mention John Newton and William Wilberforce, who were prime movers in the abolition of slavery.

By the 1820s England had become the most stable country
in Europe, and had avoided the horrible social turmoil which had taken place in France. Yet her economic organisation and political institutions cannot account for this greater stability.

What made the difference was vigorous Bible-based Gospel preaching, for this alone can transform hearts, both then and today.

Yours in friendly discussion,
Rev. Peter Simpson.

Superb; clearly the fat lady has yet to sing! So much nonsense, impossible - and unnecessary, plenty of hanging - rope provided here already - to chart it all.... Buddhists believe in gods? Check your sources! Humans have no innate hunger for goodness and decency...? Possibly, on your home planet, this may be true; but here we`re all, without exception, seeking such things, but usually looking in the wrong places, hence all our troubles and wars. Neither "good" nor "evil" are, or could ever be, absolutes (the notion is monstrous, please try and think about it) - one without the other is devoid of all meaning, rather like trying to imagine "up" without "down" or "on" without "off" - they are all relative). Ah - so the Earth is about 6,000 years old, then, of course it is, yes (you just sit quietly while I call the nurse); but still no explanation as to how I (as a saved soul) could enjoy heaven while Mum`s in hell - "Sorry, Mum, bit unfortunate, eh? Well, you had your chance. Bye!" Again I say; shame be upon your collective heads for attempting to persuade people to swallow a creed of division, guilt, judgement, fear, exclusivity and sheer bullish ignorance. It`s little wonder (as I`ve mentioned previously) that you appear so devoid of humour or self - analysis; I too would be living in a state of constant mediaeval - style terror if I were to subscribe to such extraordinary philosophical constrictions, constructions and convolutions... "Not best pleased with the stance you take" ? Yes, I think that`s fair to say...! Could do better if you weren`t so easily distracted...

...and of course, silly me, in mentioning the Inquisition earlier, I`d forgotten that the other 28,000 or so officially registered versions of Christianity are, according to yourselves, not actually Christian at all - or at least barely so - including our old friends the Catholics! How blessed you are to have such a total monopoly on "absolute" truth...

Well, I think this particular fat lady`s going to sing at last, and thanks for the ride; I`m sure many have been fascinated by a glimpse into the machinations of the fundamentalist monotheistic mindset. Shame we never got on to the doings of Mr. Be-elzebub (I always find villains much more fun than heroes) - maybe sometime soon? All the best!

wanna bet

oh phooey, I didn't realise this thread had flared up again... I was reading solafide's comments thinking "oh, I have to respond to this claptrap" but dtap, you've pretty much said anything I'd want to add to the debate - thanks!

...oh, except I love how Allah is dismissed as a "god of human invention"

solafide... you realise that Muslims worship the same god as you, right??

KentP wrote:
...oh, except I love how Allah is dismissed as a "god of human invention"

solafide... you realise that Muslims worship the same god as you, right??

They do not.

They do not.

dtap wrote:
...and of course, silly me, in mentioning the Inquisition earlier, I`d forgotten that the other 28,000 or so officially registered versions of Christianity are, according to yourselves, not actually Christian at all - or at least barely so - including our old friends the Catholics! How blessed you are to have such a total monopoly on "absolute" truth...

I wonder where you got the figure of 28,000 from. A Christian is one who follows the teaching of Christ, as revealed in the Bible. Anybody who denies any fundamental doctrine is not a Christian.

Those who deny Genesis as a historical record undermine several fundamentals of Scripture. If there was no first Adam then, there could be no last Adam. By Bible teaches that by man (because of his sin) came death. Evolution teaches that by death came man. Genesis teaches that God made everything perfect. Evolution teaches that through eons of struggle, disease and death all creatures, including man have evolved and are still evolving.

The Bible is the absolute truth, hence any deviation from that is to go into error.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I should know better than to get involved in these slugging contests –
‘I now turn to Impeturbable Lawrence. Yes, individual adherents of various faiths can behave badly but if there is a consistent trend, as is the case with atheistic states, then it is reasonable to assume it is because of their ideology’.
/
It is one possible explanation.
…
There never has been a Christian state as such. There have been states, such as the UK, which had a strong Christian influence. Such states, though far from faultless, have been far superior compared to any atheistic state you care to mention.
/
Being Protestant was like a part of being English until about a hundred years ago – ‘Popery’ - being Catholic was the insult used to describe the Irish and the Continental Europeans – until the 1820’s you had to be or maintain the appearance of being a member of the Anglican Church. This flawed but nonetheless greater superiority might have been the result of inferior technology for killing people – during the pre-industrial period pogroms had to be carried out on the spot without trains, gas chambers and automatically-firing weapons.

…
I am not aware of any mutation that gives resistance to disease.
/
The mutation of antibodies enabling them to resist disease is well-known (as this is a non-directional process there are also mutations that enable diseases to overcome our resistance to them). I did not realise that ‘Sickle Cell anaemia deters the malarial mosquito from biting the sufferer.’ I did not mention sickle cell anaemia but I understood – I may be wrong – that mortality statistics showed that people with sickle cell anaemia who fell ill with malaria had a single-digit percentage advantage in terms of survival, over non-sickle cell anaemia sufferers who became infected with malaria – an example of a disease that confers survival value. I don’t know how this works. I am not sure what ‘But without treatment those with this mutation would die’, means.
…
Germs do not develop resistance to antibiotics. Germs have always existed with this characteristic. When the germs with the receptors for antibiotics, which are always far more numerous, are killed off, then the resistant ones multiply. The resistant germs have lost the receptors through mutations which makes them less able to compete with the normal germs, which is why they only constitute a small fraction of the whole before the introduction of antibiotics.
/
I am not a scientist but you are surely describing a Darwinian process by which germs with an advantage in the struggle for survival manage to survive and pass on their characteristics to their progeny. (If microorganisms can have ‘progeny’.)

…
If Darwin's theory, which is contrary to all observable science, seems more reasonable to you, I leave you to it.
/
I am not sure why you say Darwin’s theory is ‘contrary to all observable science’. Even in the United States an overwhelming majority of scientists accept it in preference to Genesis or ‘Intelligent Design’ and I’m afraid it DOES provide me with a cogent, detailed, wide ranging and convincing explanation of the world I see around me that Genesis does not. Why do you imagine that 19th century scientists like Huxley or Philip Gosse lengthily wrestled with their consciences and came or failed to come to abandon the faith of their forebears, and accept the validity of Evolutionary theory, and with it the comfort of belief in an after-life? Some Victorian clergy like Baden-Powell were willing to accept Evolution with losing their belief in God.
…
I will make this observation though. If life began with a simple cell and gradually developed into the vast array of organisms that are alive today (even more in the past) why are the transitional organisms, of which there should be millions, missing from the fossil record?
/
There ARE millions of fossil species making a narrative though it is incomplete in places. We are still establishing the fossil record and parts of it (some of them have been pushed under tectonic subduction zones) have been destroyed.
…

Charles Kingsley was an evolutionist and, as such, denied the faith he was ordained to preach. Thomas Huxley was involved in immoral orgies.
/
Kingsley was true to his conscience and served the God he believed in, in spite of accepting the validity of Evolution. I have never heard that Huxley indulged in ‘immoral orgies’.
…
I agree, you cannot compel people to believe nor would a true Christian endeavour to do so. We know that to become a Christian requires a divine intervention which the Bible terms being born from above.
/
Fair enough.
…
But that's different to enforcing moral standards. Except you are an anarchist you must realize that there has to be law and it has to be enforced. For Christians, that law is summarized in the Ten Commandments.
/
I think even an enthusiastic atheist would agree with some of the Decalogue’s strictures concerning our behaviour, if not faith, but as you said above you cannot force people to believe.
…
The matter at issue here is homosexuality. Is it good for society?
/
The matter here is whether or not we should recognise homosexuality – this is a part of life, encountered amongst other animals – earlier in this debate I said (18 March)
‘Apparently one in thirteen men is gay (hence the joke about ‘statistics show there are always two queers on the pitch in a rugby match’). A lot of the world religions seem to agree that God made us and presumably intended us to reproduce by means of SEX ! but nonetheless God has ALL KINDS of hang ups about SEX! People DON’T choose their sexuality – the arrival of girls in my consciousness many years ago was not accompanied by thoughts about did I want to do it with her brother instead – I was born heterosexual. I know God is supposed to move in a mysterious way but why did He make gays in that case?’
I stick by what I said on 18 March.
… You continue,
Is promiscuity good for society.
/
But we are talking about civil partnerships not promiscuity.
…
If we look at the diseases that flow from these behaviors, the answer is a resounding no.
/
This takes us back to the ‘mutation’ remarks above – ALL sexual behaviour involving penetrative sex can cause the spread of diseases – not just gay sex – that’s why they are called Sexually Transmitted Diseases - during the original AIDS epidemic lesbians were almost untouched by the disease – something ignored at the time when US Christian Right preachers were calling it God’s judgement.
…
Then there are the social consequences. The breakdown of family life is already causing widespread social disorder and if homosexual marriage is allowed, then why not polygamy, incest, **** or paedophilia?
/
Homosexual partnerships are between consenting adults (like polygamy which has been condoned by some of the Abrahamic faiths now and in the past) and are not comparable with incest, **** or paedophilia. (I assume ‘****’ refers to something REALLY outré but obviously can’t comment on it without knowing what it is.)

…
God's laws are for the good of humanity. If human beings lived according to these laws this would be a perfect world. But because we are sinful human beings we are incapable of doing so. That is why we need a saviour. But it is only when we acknowledge our sin, repent of it, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that we can be forgiven and have fellowship with a holy God.’
/
What God’s laws are and what they are not is a matter for dispute and interpretation – we have seen this here - but thank you for attempting to share your faith with us.

There is no dispute as to what God,' Law is, except by those who don't like it.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I should know better than to get involved in these slugging contests –
‘I now turn to Impeturbable Lawrence. Yes, individual adherents of various faiths can behave badly but if there is a consistent trend, as is the case with atheistic states, then it is reasonable to assume it is because of their ideology’.
/
It is one possible explanation.
…
There never has been a Christian state as such. There have been states, such as the UK, which had a strong Christian influence. Such states, though far from faultless, have been far superior compared to any atheistic state you care to mention.
/
Being Protestant was like a part of being English until about a hundred years ago – ‘Popery’ - being Catholic was the insult used to describe the Irish and the Continental Europeans – until the 1820’s you had to be or maintain the appearance of being a member of the Anglican Church. This flawed but nonetheless greater superiority might have been the result of inferior technology for killing people – during the pre-industrial period pogroms had to be carried out on the spot without trains, gas chambers and automatically-firing weapons.

…
I am not aware of any mutation that gives resistance to disease.
/
The mutation of antibodies enabling them to resist disease is well-known (as this is a non-directional process there are also mutations that enable diseases to overcome our resistance to them). I did not realise that ‘Sickle Cell anaemia deters the malarial mosquito from biting the sufferer.’ I did not mention sickle cell anaemia but I understood – I may be wrong – that mortality statistics showed that people with sickle cell anaemia who fell ill with malaria had a single-digit percentage advantage in terms of survival, over non-sickle cell anaemia sufferers who became infected with malaria – an example of a disease that confers survival value. I don’t know how this works. I am not sure what ‘But without treatment those with this mutation would die’, means.
…
Germs do not develop resistance to antibiotics. Germs have always existed with this characteristic. When the germs with the receptors for antibiotics, which are always far more numerous, are killed off, then the resistant ones multiply. The resistant germs have lost the receptors through mutations which makes them less able to compete with the normal germs, which is why they only constitute a small fraction of the whole before the introduction of antibiotics.
/
I am not a scientist but you are surely describing a Darwinian process by which germs with an advantage in the struggle for survival manage to survive and pass on their characteristics to their progeny. (If microorganisms can have ‘progeny’.)

…
If Darwin's theory, which is contrary to all observable science, seems more reasonable to you, I leave you to it.
/
I am not sure why you say Darwin’s theory is ‘contrary to all observable science’. Even in the United States an overwhelming majority of scientists accept it in preference to Genesis or ‘Intelligent Design’ and I’m afraid it DOES provide me with a cogent, detailed, wide ranging and convincing explanation of the world I see around me that Genesis does not. Why do you imagine that 19th century scientists like Huxley or Philip Gosse lengthily wrestled with their consciences and came or failed to come to abandon the faith of their forebears, and accept the validity of Evolutionary theory, and with it the comfort of belief in an after-life? Some Victorian clergy like Baden-Powell were willing to accept Evolution with losing their belief in God.
…
I will make this observation though. If life began with a simple cell and gradually developed into the vast array of organisms that are alive today (even more in the past) why are the transitional organisms, of which there should be millions, missing from the fossil record?
/
There ARE millions of fossil species making a narrative though it is incomplete in places. We are still establishing the fossil record and parts of it (some of them have been pushed under tectonic subduction zones) have been destroyed.
…

Charles Kingsley was an evolutionist and, as such, denied the faith he was ordained to preach. Thomas Huxley was involved in immoral orgies.
/
Kingsley was true to his conscience and served the God he believed in, in spite of accepting the validity of Evolution. I have never heard that Huxley indulged in ‘immoral orgies’.
…
I agree, you cannot compel people to believe nor would a true Christian endeavour to do so. We know that to become a Christian requires a divine intervention which the Bible terms being born from above.
/
Fair enough.
…
But that's different to enforcing moral standards. Except you are an anarchist you must realize that there has to be law and it has to be enforced. For Christians, that law is summarized in the Ten Commandments.
/
I think even an enthusiastic atheist would agree with some of the Decalogue’s strictures concerning our behaviour, if not faith, but as you said above you cannot force people to believe.
…
The matter at issue here is homosexuality. Is it good for society?
/
The matter here is whether or not we should recognise homosexuality – this is a part of life, encountered amongst other animals – earlier in this debate I said (18 March)
‘Apparently one in thirteen men is gay (hence the joke about ‘statistics show there are always two queers on the pitch in a rugby match’). A lot of the world religions seem to agree that God made us and presumably intended us to reproduce by means of SEX ! but nonetheless God has ALL KINDS of hang ups about SEX! People DON’T choose their sexuality – the arrival of girls in my consciousness many years ago was not accompanied by thoughts about did I want to do it with her brother instead – I was born heterosexual. I know God is supposed to move in a mysterious way but why did He make gays in that case?’
I stick by what I said on 18 March.
… You continue,
Is promiscuity good for society.
/
But we are talking about civil partnerships not promiscuity.
…
If we look at the diseases that flow from these behaviors, the answer is a resounding no.
/
This takes us back to the ‘mutation’ remarks above – ALL sexual behaviour involving penetrative sex can cause the spread of diseases – not just gay sex – that’s why they are called Sexually Transmitted Diseases - during the original AIDS epidemic lesbians were almost untouched by the disease – something ignored at the time when US Christian Right preachers were calling it God’s judgement.
…
Then there are the social consequences. The breakdown of family life is already causing widespread social disorder and if homosexual marriage is allowed, then why not polygamy, incest, **** or paedophilia?
/
Homosexual partnerships are between consenting adults (like polygamy which has been condoned by some of the Abrahamic faiths now and in the past) and are not comparable with incest, **** or paedophilia. (I assume ‘****’ refers to something REALLY outré but obviously can’t comment on it without knowing what it is.)

…
God's laws are for the good of humanity. If human beings lived according to these laws this would be a perfect world. But because we are sinful human beings we are incapable of doing so. That is why we need a saviour. But it is only when we acknowledge our sin, repent of it, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that we can be forgiven and have fellowship with a holy God.’
/
What God’s laws are and what they are not is a matter for dispute and interpretation – we have seen this here - but thank you for attempting to share your faith with us.

Yes, there are millions of fossils but there are no transitional specimens. The few that the evolutionists say are such are a matter of much squabbling among themselves.

"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man...If further pressed , I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradulal process of evolving." Dr Richard Leakey.

By the way, why are we not seeing fossils being formed in such vast numbers today? Fossils do not form under normal circumstances. The scenario which one finds in college books, where a fish is displayed as slowing sinking to the bottom of a lake and being gradually covered with mud. The fish would be long gone before it could be fossilized. Fossils can only form where there is rapid burial and subjected to pressure. How come that there are millions, if not billions of fossils all over the world. The answer is that there must have been a great catastrophe in the past. How about Noah's flood?

The reason the mutated germs multiply is not because of un-directed natural selection but because of the intervention of intelligent human beings. I repeat, there is known mutation that adds information to the genome. Even the simplest cell is very complicated and would have to have a prior program devised in order to exist.

Normal human relationships, within the bond of marriage do not cause VD. Other types of infection can occur through poor hygiene. To behave, as homosexuals do is bound to have serious medical consequences. Nobody, in their right mind, would roll around in a dunghill, but that is precisely what homosexuals do.

There are many scientists, who are not Christian but believe in intelligent design. Many have to keep their beliefs to themselves because they would be out of a job. The is a very good secular DVD entitled "Expelled" which interviews highly qualified people, including. professors, who have lost their positions because they went public with their beliefs. I would advise you to view it.

solafide wrote:

KentP wrote:
...oh, except I love how Allah is dismissed as a "god of human invention"

solafide... you realise that Muslims worship the same god as you, right??

They do not.

yeah... they really do!

heck, they even view your Jesus as a prophet... a Messenger of God™ no less!

yea, they even call him "Masih" (Messiah)

their god IS your god... their Jesus IS your Jesus... the only difference is that they don't think that Jesus is the *son* of god, or a physical manifestation of him/her

and really, I struggle to think of a definition of the word 'son' where I'd ever be able to agree on that point either...

unless you think that all people are Children of God™, in which case... hmm, actually no, that doesn't help either as that would just serve to diminish the status of Jesus to merely *a* Son of God™

solafide wrote:

dtap wrote:
...and of course, silly me, in mentioning the Inquisition earlier, I`d forgotten that the other 28,000 or so officially registered versions of Christianity are, according to yourselves, not actually Christian at all - or at least barely so - including our old friends the Catholics! How blessed you are to have such a total monopoly on "absolute" truth...

I wonder where you got the figure of 28,000 from. A Christian is one who follows the teaching of Christ, as revealed in the Bible. Anybody who denies any fundamental doctrine is not a Christian.

Those who deny Genesis as a historical record undermine several fundamentals of Scripture. If there was no first Adam then, there could be no last Adam. By Bible teaches that by man (because of his sin) came death. Evolution teaches that by death came man. Genesis teaches that God made everything perfect. Evolution teaches that through eons of struggle, disease and death all creatures, including man have evolved and are still evolving.

The Bible is the absolute truth, hence any deviation from that is to go into error.

there are many other faiths available to subscribe to that think the same of your religion as you do of theirs...

their holy scriptures say that they are right just like yours say that you are right

ignoring the fact that I personally think they're all rubbish, how can you seriously claim ownership of the One True God™ over any other Believer™?

okay, I'll go and watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", on the proviso that you go away and read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins... we'll meet back here in 7 days and compare notes - how about it?

KentP wrote:

solafide wrote:

KentP wrote:
...oh, except I love how Allah is dismissed as a "god of human invention"

solafide... you realise that Muslims worship the same god as you, right??

They do not.

yeah... they really do!

heck, they even view your Jesus as a prophet... a Messenger of God™ no less!

yea, they even call him "Masih" (Messiah)

their god IS your god... their Jesus IS your Jesus... the only difference is that they don't think that Jesus is the *son* of god, or a physical manifestation of him/her

and really, I struggle to think of a definition of the word 'son' where I'd ever be able to agree on that point either...

unless you think that all people are Children of God™, in which case... hmm, actually no, that doesn't help either as that would just serve to diminish the status of Jesus to merely *a* Son of God™

Your are incorrect. The believe that Jesus was a prophet, but Mohammad is considered to be a superior prophet.
They deny the Triune God and the Deity of Christ. They deny that He died on the cross for the sins of His people. They teach that His disciples substituted somebody else, some say Judas Iscariot.
Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, begotten, not created Allah, is the name of the moon god that was worshipped in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Mohammad. The ritual carried out at the Hajh is the same as the moon worshippers.

No, we none of us are the sons of God in a spiritual sense until we are born again of the Spirit of God. We are then adopted into the family of God.

solafide wrote:

KentP wrote:

solafide wrote:

KentP wrote:
...oh, except I love how Allah is dismissed as a "god of human invention"

solafide... you realise that Muslims worship the same god as you, right??

They do not.

yeah... they really do!

heck, they even view your Jesus as a prophet... a Messenger of God™ no less!

yea, they even call him "Masih" (Messiah)

their god IS your god... their Jesus IS your Jesus... the only difference is that they don't think that Jesus is the *son* of god, or a physical manifestation of him/her

and really, I struggle to think of a definition of the word 'son' where I'd ever be able to agree on that point either...

unless you think that all people are Children of God™, in which case... hmm, actually no, that doesn't help either as that would just serve to diminish the status of Jesus to merely *a* Son of God™

Your are incorrect. The believe that Jesus was a prophet, but Mohammad is considered to be a superior prophet.
They deny the Triune God and the Deity of Christ. They deny that He died on the cross for the sins of His people. They teach that His disciples substituted somebody else, some say Judas Iscariot.
Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, begotten, not created Allah, is the name of the moon god that was worshipped in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Mohammad. The ritual carried out at the Hajh is the same as the moon worshippers.

No, we none of us are the sons of God in a spiritual sense until we are born again of the Spirit of God. We are then adopted into the family of God.

okay, I still think we're arguing two sides of the same coin, but putting that aside for one second...

...perhaps they are right in believing that, and you are wrong

Ohh, I just couldn`t keep away, could I? Planet Earth was conjured into being on the whim of a supernatural entity 6,000 years ago... just can`t suppress the guffaws! Nor do I see why I should, to be honest; you lot deserve all you get. Now, " solafide ", I told you to sit still and wait for the nurse; she`ll be along just as soon as she can.

KentP wrote:
okay, I'll go and watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", on the proviso that you go away and read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins... we'll meet back here in 7 days and compare notes - how about it?

solafide... did we have a deal with this? I need to know so I can try and source the film from somewhere...

Blimey; this particular comments page feels like putting your tongue into a bad tooth - you just can`t help doing it, however uncomfortable. A slight revision of my earlier quote follows: Wikipedia estimates that " there are reported to be 38,000 Christian denominations... " Oh, well - maybe we`ll hear about Be-elzebub on this one after all; maybe you were right, lorrainej...

dtap wrote:
Ohh, I just couldn`t keep away, could I? Planet Earth was conjured into being on the whim of a supernatural entity 6,000 years ago... just can`t suppress the guffaws! Nor do I see why I should, to be honest; you lot deserve all you get. Now, " solafide ", I told you to sit still and wait for the nurse; she`ll be along just as soon as she can.

Either the Universe was created by a super intelligent being or it did it all on its own. dtap obviously thinks that it's inanimate matter that is blessed with super intelligence. Not only so, it can organize itself from the simple to the incredibly complicated by chance. In fact let us begin at the beginning. Nothing exploded and as matter came into being and travelled through the vacuum of space in linear fashion, it suddenly, for no apparent reason decide to go angular. Gradually the stars and planets formed,many in the same system rotating in opposite directions.

After millions of years proteins formed in an extremely hostile environment, which should have destroyed them in seconds, and then, without a DNA program to direct them formed into all the life forms we see today. Maybe the DNA program developed all by itself.

Now where is the evidence for all of this? Is in the fossil record? No, there are no transitional fossils to be found, when their should be tens of thousands. Can it be demonstrated that it is happening today? The answer, yet again, is a resounding no. Why then do evolutionists believe in something that has no scientific proof? The answer is they belief because they want to believe it. Or as the Apostle Peter put it in his epistle " Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, (there have been a few on this blog) walking after their own lusts.For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water." 2 Peter3 :3&5.

Steven J Gould, late Professor of Paeleontology at Harvard University, produced a new theory, to try and explain away the absence of transitional fossils, called Punctuated Equilibrium. According to this theory, evolution happened in such fast spurts that no transitional species had time to be fossilized. The subduction theory is of the same ilk. It just shows to what lengths evolutionists will go to excuse the absence of any evidence.

dtap wrote:
Ohh, I just couldn`t keep away, could I? Planet Earth was conjured into being on the whim of a supernatural entity 6,000 years ago... just can`t suppress the guffaws! Nor do I see why I should, to be honest; you lot deserve all you get. Now, " solafide ", I told you to sit still and wait for the nurse; she`ll be along just as soon as she can.

Either the Universe was created by a super intelligent being or it did it all on its own. dtap obviously thinks that it's inanimate matter that is blessed with super intelligence. Not only so, it can organize itself from the simple to the incredibly complicated by chance. In fact let us begin at the beginning. Nothing exploded and as matter came into being and travelled through the vacuum of space in linear fashion, it suddenly, for no apparent reason decide to go angular. Gradually the stars and planets formed,many in the same system rotating in opposite directions.

After millions of years proteins formed in an extremely hostile environment, which should have destroyed them in seconds, and then, without a DNA program to direct them formed into all the life forms we see today. Maybe the DNA program developed all by itself.

Now where is the evidence for all of this? Is in the fossil record? No, there are no transitional fossils to be found, when their should be tens of thousands. Can it be demonstrated that it is happening today? The answer, yet again, is a resounding no. Why then do evolutionists believe in something that has no scientific proof? The answer is they belief because they want to believe it. Or as the Apostle Peter put it in his epistle " Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, (there have been a few on this blog) walking after their own lusts.For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water." 2 Peter3 :3&5.

Steven J Gould, late Professor of Paeleontology at Harvard University, produced a new theory, to try and explain away the absence of transitional fossils, called Punctuated Equilibrium. According to this theory, evolution happened in such fast spurts that no transitional species had time to be fossilized. The subduction theory is of the same ilk. It just shows to what lengths evolutionists will go to excuse the absence of any evidence.

KentP wrote:

solafide wrote:

KentP wrote:

solafide wrote:

KentP wrote:
...oh, except I love how Allah is dismissed as a "god of human invention"

solafide... you realise that Muslims worship the same god as you, right??

They do not.

yeah... they really do!

heck, they even view your Jesus as a prophet... a Messenger of God™ no less!

yea, they even call him "Masih" (Messiah)

their god IS your god... their Jesus IS your Jesus... the only difference is that they don't think that Jesus is the *son* of god, or a physical manifestation of him/her

and really, I struggle to think of a definition of the word 'son' where I'd ever be able to agree on that point either...

unless you think that all people are Children of God™, in which case... hmm, actually no, that doesn't help either as that would just serve to diminish the status of Jesus to merely *a* Son of God™

Your are incorrect. The believe that Jesus was a prophet, but Mohammad is considered to be a superior prophet.
They deny the Triune God and the Deity of Christ. They deny that He died on the cross for the sins of His people. They teach that His disciples substituted somebody else, some say Judas Iscariot.
Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, begotten, not created Allah, is the name of the moon god that was worshipped in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Mohammad. The ritual carried out at the Hajh is the same as the moon worshippers.

No, we none of us are the sons of God in a spiritual sense until we are born again of the Spirit of God. We are then adopted into the family of God.

okay, I still think we're arguing two sides of the same coin, but putting that aside for one second...

...perhaps they are right in believing that, and you are wrong

Either the Universe was created by a super intelligent being or it did it all on its own. dtap obviously thinks that it's inanimate matter that is blessed with super intelligence. Not only so, it can organize itself from the simple to the incredibly complicated by chance. In fact let us begin at the beginning. Nothing exploded and as matter came into being and travelled through the vacuum of space in linear fashion, it suddenly, for no apparent reason decide to go angular. Gradually the stars and planets formed,many in the same system rotating in opposite directions.

After millions of years proteins formed in an extremely hostile environment, which should have destroyed them in seconds, and then, without a DNA program to direct them formed into all the life forms we see today. Maybe the DNA program developed all by itself.

Now where is the evidence for all of this? Is in the fossil record? No, there are no transitional fossils to be found, when their should be tens of thousands. Can it be demonstrated that it is happening today? The answer, yet again, is a resounding no. Why then do evolutionists believe in something that has no scientific proof? The answer is they belief because they want to believe it. Or as the Apostle Peter put it in his epistle " Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, (there have been a few on this blog) walking after their own lusts.For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water." 2 Peter3 :3&5.

Steven J Gould, late Professor of Paeleontology at Harvard University, produced a new theory, to try and explain away the absence of transitional fossils, called Punctuated Equilibrium. According to this theory, evolution happened in such fast spurts that no transitional species had time to be fossilized. The subduction theory is of the same ilk. It just shows to what lengths evolutionists will go to excuse the absence of any evidence.

KentP You can easily find out how to get the DVD on line. I have in my possession a book answering many of Dawkin's assertions in his book The God Delusion. I have also seen comments by fellow evolutionists stating that he has not got a very good grasp of theology. Nevertheless, I will go and get the book from the library.

The Koran is a jumbled up mixture of The Old and New Testaments, along with Arabian Moon worship. Have you noticed the crescent moon on their flags? Many of the characters of the Bible are in the wrong time frame in the Koran. In one part of the Koran it states that the world was created in six days,i n another it states that it was eight days.

Mohammed said that if the revelations he was getting was not in accordance with the book i e The Bible, then it was not God that was speaking through him. In fact,at the beginning, he was afraid that he was possessed by the Jinn, that is demons. It was his first wife who persuaded him otherwise.
Because the Koran is so contrary to the Bible, the Muslims insist that the Bible is completely altered. This in spite of the fact that there are manuscripts still in existence that pre-date the Koran, as well as a multitude of articles and sermons by the Church fathers.

Which book is true? I could give many evidences to prove that the Bible is true but I shall give but one. Which of the 'holy books' have transformed lives and societies. Which can make the drunkard sober, the immoral moral, the liar truthful and the violent peaceable? I leave you to work that out.

I am unable to answer all points raised because I simply haven't got the time. Sorry!

Er, no - we`re not in an "either...or" situation here - you just won`t get it, will you? - and - whoa - I see that (allegently) I think that "inanimate matter is blessed with super intelligence" ... well, isn`t that odd, I have no recollection of stating any such thing, my memory must be failing. Now: which of the "holy books" have transformed lives and societies? Mmmm - how about the Tao Te Ching? How about the Upanishads? How about the Sutras? How about the Q`ran? How about... oh, come on, wake up! "True" ? "Untrue"? I leave you to work that one out, because I "simply haven`t got the time" (though I`ll give you a clue; we`re talking relativity again) . I shan`t, however, be holding my breath. Sorry!

And of course I meant to say "allegedly" (apologies); although, on reflection, "all gently" might be good advice to our Fundamentalist Chums here. Not a great deal of fun in evidence, mind you (albeit inadvertently), but fairly mental nonetheless, don`t you think?

solafide, I'm not going to quote the whole thing, as its already turning into 'unreadable wall of text', but I'll try and address a few of the issues you pontificate on:

"transitive fossils"

actually, if you'd bother to do some research rather than finding convenient references from the nearest religious paleontologist (whatever one of those might be), you'd find that yes, transitive fossils do in fact exist - there are hundreds of em... and that's just the ones they've found fossils for

the link below gives a small subset of these:

http://www.livescien
ce.com/3306-fossils-
reveal-truth-darwin-
theory.html

"Which book is true?"

I'm going to go with 'neither' - I never said that Islam was more valid than Christianity, I was making the point that there's absolutely nothing to say that their belief system is any less valid or true than yours

"I have in my possession a book answering many of Dawkin's assertions in his book The God Delusion"

I'm glad you're going to get the actual book, as the book you have in your possession is presumably heavily biased towards intelligent design, and so of course they're going to pick holes in what he says, using the same circular logic and the same false arguments as you've repeated on this very thread

"I have also seen comments by fellow evolutionists stating that he has not got a very good grasp of theology"

first off, you don't really need that firm a grasp on theology if you don't believe the central tenet of a One True God is valid - at most, you need to understand why superstition exists

secondly, when you say 'evolutionists', who are you actually talking about? I'm guessing not other atheists (as an aside, Dawkins freely identifies himself as agnostic, as nobody can be 100% certain that there isn't some supernatural creature or creatures in the cosmos, but he is as certain as anyone can be that there isn't, as there is absolutely no evidence to say that He exists (and as before, any criticism of his book is likely to be based off of circular logic and falsehoods, rather than anything approaching objectivity)

thirdly, do you have any sources you could provide for these 'comments'? I would be interested to read them first-hand.

"Which can make the drunkard sober, the immoral moral, the liar truthful and the violent peaceable?"

is it 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'?

I genuinely don't believe the bible teaches anything groundbreaking enough to be solely responsible for people breaking destructive habits - people need to want to change, and beyond that, really its just a case of reassuring the person that they're doing the right thing... your book just happens to do this using vague, weasel words of everlasting comfort and conversely the bogus threat of eternal damnation if they fail to reform their own character - that's bound to scare a few of the more-impressionable people straight! really, what impressionable person would want to bet against such a fail-safe? any other self-help book will help just as well, and counsellors do this selfsame job at least as successfully as the bible ever could, without any of the veiled threats of everlasting castigation

christianity (actually, I won't be so specific...) religion boils down to this (sweeping, but entirely accurate) generalisation:

Members of (your religion) believe that the teachings of (your holy book) are true, because (your holy book) says that the teachings of (your holy book) are true.

nothing you have said in any of your posts has strayed outside of this truism in your efforts to provide reason for your belief in your god

...feel free to prove me wrong though?

A splendid comment, KentP, well put. Isn`t it tragic how the beautiful and poetic symbolism of so much of the Bible is reduced by these people into shallow literalism? The great creation myth of Genesis: the clever metaphorical tale of mankind`s loss of oneness with all things (Eden) and his descent into unhappy relativism (the knowledge of good and evil), traduced, for example, into two-dimensional " history " lessons... Without doubt these are the very people who - shocked by his message and appalled by the company he kept - would unhesitatingly have nailed Christ to a cross, and felt good about it afterwards. They speak smugly of love, but practise hatred; one of them even attempted to classify homosexuality with paedophilia! Their fear and loathing of gays, and their general obsession with what goes on in peoples` bedrooms, actually speaks volumes about themselves - I wonder what dark repressions lurk just beneath those facades of "humble courtesy" ? They would do well to remove the beams from their own eyes before attempting to take the motes from others.....

....I should add, though, that the kind of monotheistic book - based religion we`ve been playing with here is a very different kettle of fish to systems such as Buddhism or Taoism; they - at least when at their best - more resemble methods of self - realisation than religions of blind faith. Belief does indeed play a very important part in them, but it`s a belief in one`s own ability to transcend relative concepts such as "good" and "evil" rather than belief in supernatural events portrayed as literally and historically accurate. Yes, there are " scriptures " (I thoroughly recommend the Tao Te Ching and also the Lotus Sutra) but they are not usually regarded as "holy" - they guide, not define. Buddha (not a god but a man) himself famously declared that we should not follow him, but try to practise his teachings for ouselves, rejecting them if we find them wanting. Doesn`t sound too unreasonable, does it?

oh yeah, I should have stipulated monotheistic religion in my generalisation... good call!

kent vs solafide 'source material challenge' update:

I have now watched "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" - I would have to say it has done absolutely nothing to convince me that intelligent design has any place in science, and the content was willfully misleading, used cherry-picked information, half-truths and the genuine scientists (including Darwin himself) were repeatedly quoted out of context to make them seem evil, or stupid, or mad...

oh, and the constant barrage of footage of wartime imagery of the Nazis and their oppression of the Jewish people as if it was a fair and legitimate comparison to opponents of intelligent design was bizarre to say the least, and frankly, quite despicable!

was interesting to see how your side of the argument tries to rationalise 'ID' though I guess... seemingly through being completely irrational

anyway, am up for further debate on its content (and on the God Delusion once you've read it), so its now over to you...

I think we`ve scared `em off for now. I`ll take first watch, you get some shut-eye.

haha thanks, I need it!

dtap wrote:
A splendid comment, KentP, well put. Isn`t it tragic how the beautiful and poetic symbolism of so much of the Bible is reduced by these people into shallow literalism? The great creation myth of Genesis: the clever metaphorical tale of mankind`s loss of oneness with all things (Eden) and his descent into unhappy relativism (the knowledge of good and evil), traduced, for example, into two-dimensional " history " lessons... Without doubt these are the very people who - shocked by his message and appalled by the company he kept - would unhesitatingly have nailed Christ to a cross, and felt good about it afterwards. They speak smugly of love, but practise hatred; one of them even attempted to classify homosexuality with paedophilia! Their fear and loathing of gays, and their general obsession with what goes on in peoples` bedrooms, actually speaks volumes about themselves - I wonder what dark repressions lurk just beneath those facades of "humble courtesy" ? They would do well to remove the beams from their own eyes before attempting to take the motes from others.....

Stephen J Gould was a Marxist. You ought to know who Dr Richard Leakey is : a Christian or an intelligent design individual he most certainly is not.

What circular reasoning have I used? The evolutionists are the classic circular reasoners. Ask how they know the age of a fossil and they will reply 'by the the rock its found in.' Ask how they date the rocks and they will reply 'by the fossils.'

I have quote after quote by evolutionists in which they acknowledge that there are no transitional fossils. "C P Hickman, L S Roberts and A Larson in Integrated Principles of Zoology write: "The very first fish undoubtedly arose from invertebrate protochordates... However, the first fishes left no fossil record and their form and relationships are a mystery." Note they say that fish undoubtedly arose from protochordates. How do they know if there is no fossil evidence? Its the same story right down the line. There is no evidence but yet they and you believe it to be true.

Either inanimate matter is intelligent or non intelligence produced intelligence. What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? No matter.

If the Koran is factually incorrect, which it is, and its prophet enforced its tenets by the sword, which he did, its hardly a trustworthy composition. In addition, he consummated at the age of nine a girl betrothed to him at age six.
The Koran advocates violence against all other religions, suicide bombings and assassinations, as we see practiced day and daily.

Hinduism still has the caste system. Did have temple prostitution, girls taken in at age six and then thrown unto the streets ate the age of twelve. Christian missionaries took these girls in and educated them so that they could earn a living. As far as I am aware, the practice of a wife being incinerated when her husband dies is still carried on in some rural areas. They are a classic example of those who worship the creature rather than the creator as per Romans Chapter 1. They have a monkey god and an elephant god, as well as thousands of other gods.

KentP. What was misleading, cherry-picked, misquoted, in Expelled? The people interviewed are top scientists. They are real people.

The quotation from Darwin's "Descent of Man" is exactly correct. Check it!

Hitler was an ardent evolutionist and he gave natural selection a helping hand.

I am afraid you are one of those who are 'willfully ignorant,as as an American preacher put it, "dumb of purpose".

Last year a fellow of The Royal Society, I have forgotten his name for the moment, was forced to resign because he suggested that if pupils brought up creationism in class it should be discussed. He was informed that his suggestion was bringing the Royal Society into disrepute.

If the case for evolution is so strong, why are the evolutionists so afraid of the creationist arguments?

The creation account in Genesis is written in narrative form and is nowhere poetic. The Lord Jesus Christ, when dealing with the abuse of marriage by the Jews of His day referred to creation. "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh, What therefore God hath together, let not man put asunder." Matthew 19:4-6.

Was Christ being bigoted and homophobic? If we, who advocate what He advocated, are so termed, then He, whose standard we follow, must be also, according to your and others way of thinking.

I might post again later, but very quickly because its so easy to find on the internet:

first the butchered version from the film:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

and now, the full unedited version (previously missing sections in bold):

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil"

check out the wikipedia page on the film, it gives a few pointers as to where the scientists have been misquoted, and how they were duped into appearing in this film to begin with (along with myriad other criticisms of the film):

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Expelled:_N
o_Intelligence_Allow
ed

also, I've not read any of it yet, but there seems to be an entire website dedicated to debunking your film in its entirety:

http://www.expellede
xposed.com/

(hmm, missing sections not in bold, thanks to paragraph formatting... you'll find them if you look hard enough though)

...anyway, it wasn't even that supportive of Christianity... the -actor- who presented it is Jewish, which is entirely at odds with your religion from the get-go

and one possible 'intelligent design' mooted was aliens - I'm assuming you're not suggesting you want that taught in schools as a viable possibility?

anyway, I await your critique of The God Delusion based on reading it cover-to-cover (feel free to consult the inevitable creationist debunking of it afterwards, but please read it with as few preconceptions as you can otherwise you'll get nothing out of the exercise - and I did genuinely watch that film in the same spirit, so its the least you could do to extend to me the same fairness

I watched it, and I disagreed with what it had to say, I wasn't simply agreeing with what the internet told me I should think of it... perhaps you'll be able to do exactly the same with The God Delusion... perhaps not.

Whoo, tally-ho! They caught me nappin` on duty, creeping up like that in the night. " solafine " - either the nurse failed to arrive, or you`ve been mis-medicated. "Was Christ bigoted and homophobic? " The unsubstantiated scraps of evidence concerning his existence that we find in the currently accepted version of the New Testament strongly suggest that, at least most of the time, he was actually pretty cool. Turning water into alcohol, hanging out with prostitutes, asking for tolerance (anyone pure and blameless care to cast the first stone? etc) and advocating non - judgemental attitudes (judge not, lest ye be judged), non-violence (he who lives by the sword shall die by it), showing anger at the money-changers in the temple (so how about some of your vicious opprobrium being heaped on our modern greedy bankers, rather than wasting time prying into folks` bedroom antics?), and reminding us, as all the great teachers and mystics from all around the world have done, that the Kingdom of Heaven lies, not in the future, not in another place, but right now, "within us" . As I said earlier: burdened as you are with your current attitudes and placed 2,000 or so years back, you would have howled for his blood - he would have horrified you and all your kind. If he does turn up again, boy are you in trouble!

....though actually, a nice little fatwah might just get to you first! Islam (the word means "peace" , or "submission to the will of god " , by the way) has certainly been used by extremists as an excuse for acts fuelled by great bigotry and intolerance (although true Moslems are horrified by such acts and attitudes), all of which illustrate the grave dangers inherent in insisting that "The book I follow is right, yours is wrong " I`ll tell you something for nothing: the real book of life is written, not on corruptible, transient paper, open to endless interpretations and translations, but in your own heart. Leave your fear behind, and follow it!

...I guess it was too much to ask for a response on the Sabbath...

dtap wrote:
....though actually, a nice little fatwah might just get to you first! Islam (the word means "peace" , or "submission to the will of god " , by the way) has certainly been used by extremists as an excuse for acts fuelled by great bigotry and intolerance (although true Moslems are horrified by such acts and attitudes), all of which illustrate the grave dangers inherent in insisting that "The book I follow is right, yours is wrong " I`ll tell you something for nothing: the real book of life is written, not on corruptible, transient paper, open to endless interpretations and translations, but in your own heart. Leave your fear behind, and follow it!

That is well-meant but could be bad advice dtap - some people's hearts lead them to do wicked things when they are being true to themselves.

I understand your point - but mine is that, if we can really open up and discover what`s actually in our hearts (that endless yearning we all feel for love and happiness and belonging) and we learn to look in the only place that can fully satisfy those longings - again, within ourselves, rather than in the material amassing of possessions or power - then we`ll always do what`s best, and what`s decent and honorable, without being terrified by invisible judges (or even flying unicorns). Seek, and ye shall find. This is the message of the Buddha. This is the message of the Christ. To be genuinely true to yourself is to be so to all others (again, unsurprisingly, Shakespeare put it rather better than I can) - we`re all in the same boat! It`s not just a nice hippie cliche to declare that " we`re all one " - it`s a fact, both scientifically and spiritually.

...and the quotation is, of course, another cracker from "Hamlet" - " To thine own self be true / And it must follow, as the night the day,/ Thou canst not then be false to any man " . Exactly: that "self" is the same one shared by all of us: in Hinduism it is called the " Atman " , and in Buddhism " Buddha Nature " . It is indivisible. That`s why we should resist at any cost the blandishments such as those presented on this page which incite in us fear, division or guilt; it`s the realisation of union with that Self we all seek , and the source of all suffering is looking for it in the wrong places and failing to find it in them. I`ll say it again - "The Kingdom of Heaven is Within " .