Jeb Bush2
Civil Liberties

Christians are the new lepers

 

Speaking at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virginia last week, the next Republican nominee (if they have any sense) for President of the United States spoke of the increasing intolerance being expressed toward Christians by the erstwhile liberal democratic states, simply for believers’ adherence to centuries-old moral orthodoxy and theological wisdom in an age of relativism and aggressive assertions of equality and human rights. Yes, he was courting the ‘Evangelical vote’ (aka ‘Religious Right’), but quite why an appeal to that constituency should be deemed cynical when a presidential candidate must impress across a broad church (quite literally) is perplexing. The fact that much of the media, however, deemed his speech to be a depthless flash of detested pretence rather goes to prove Bush’s point: Christians are the new lepers.

He didn’t quite point it like that, but the inference is clear:

How strange, in our own time, to hear Christianity spoken of as some sort of backward and oppressive force. Outside these seven thousand acres of shared conviction, it’s a depressing fact that when some people think of Christianity and of Judeo-Christian values, they think of something static, narrow, and outdated. We can take this as unfair criticism, as it typically is, or we can take it as further challenge to show in our lives the most dynamic, inclusive, and joyful message that ever came into the world.

And he quoted Chesterton’s observation that we live in a time when “Christians are expected to praise every faith but their own”.  He denounced “fashionable opinion”, which these days, he says, “can be a religion all by itself”. and it has an ideological sibling in political correctness:

It can be a touchy subject, and I am asked sometimes whether I would ever allow my decisions in government to be influenced by my Christian faith. Whenever I hear this, I know what they want me to say. The simple and safe reply is, ‘No. Never. Of course not.’ If the game is political correctness, that’s the answer that moves you to the next round. The endpoint is a certain kind of politician we’ve all heard before – the guy whose moral convictions are so private, so deeply personal, that he refuses even to impose them on himself.

He repudiates the use of “coercive federal power” and the “false narrative that casts religious Americans as intolerant scolds, running around trying to impose their views on everyone”.

The stories vary, year after year, but the storyline is getting familiar: The progressive political agenda is ready for its next great leap forward, and religious people or churches are getting in the way. Our friends on the Left like to view themselves as the agents of change and reform, and you and I are supposed to just get with the program.

There are consequences when you don’t genuflect to the latest secular dogmas. And those dogmas can be hard to keep up with. So we find officials in a major city demanding that pastors turn over copies of their sermons. Or federal judges mistaking themselves for elected legislators, and imposing restrictions and rights that do not exist in the Constitution. Or an agency dictating to a Catholic charity, the Little Sisters of the Poor, what has to go in their health plan – and never mind objections of conscience.

His zeal is for religious freedom, which, under President Obama, has been made a little lower than Gomorrah: “What should be easy calls, in favor of religious freedom, have instead become an aggressive stance against it.”

It strikes me that most of the criticism directed at believers in our day is drawn from hostile caricature. That’s just the easy way of avoiding honest discussion. It is a posture that only deepens distrust, instead of inviting understanding.

The truth, of course, is that the censorious liberals and intolerant democrats don’t want an honest discussion. By deepening distrust of Christians, they stifle debate in order to suppress truth. Leviticus introduced us to the scapegoat; the Athenians gave us ostracism; Matthew and Luke tell us about lepers. Now, of course, we send people to Coventry. Every age and culture has its heretics, untouchables and outcasts. Christians aren’t quite criminals, but if ‘hate speech’ continues to suck in Scripture, it won’t be too long before the priestly persona non grata is thrown into prison by the enlightened establishment simply for refusing to join two men in holy matrimony.

It is astonishing that the very fons et origo of our notions of decency, integrity, justice and morality are now routinely demonised by the ‘progressives’ on the left (not to mention coercive social liberals on the right) to the extent that the inculcation of Christian belief is now considered harmful to children and detrimental to the mental, emotional and psychological health of adults. When did faith in Jesus become abuse? How did upholding the sanctity of marriage become a heinous offence? Why is the belief that a mother and a father are best placed to nurture children deemed otiose? Who appointed these infallible priests of secular orthodoxy and immutable human rights dogma?

Jeb Bush told us that “there is no more powerful or liberating influence on this earth than the Christian conscience in action”:

No place where the message reaches, no heart that it touches, is ever the same again. And across our own civilization, what a radically different story history would tell without it. Consider a whole alternative universe of power without restraint, conflict without reconciliation, oppression without deliverance, corruption without reformation, tragedy without renewal, achievement without grace, and it’s all just a glimpse of human experience without the Christian influence.

And yet that conscience has become warped, dangerous and damaging. Christianity has become a perverted practice and phobic offence. Christians who were called to a revolutionary mission of love have become the haters, bigots and social deviants. Our words are deemed destructive; our beliefs archaic; our opinions obsolete. We cling to free speech but know that our mere thoughts are scorned by the illiberal anti-democrats who demand unqualified subjection to what we are told is the new mainstream of reason and factual authority. To criticise is social suicide. To utter a word in defence of the Faith is shrill and shallow. To tweet truth is to invite Stephen Fry’s horde of devotees to screech ‘homophobe’ and heckle until an apology is extracted – with threats, if necessary.

There can be no opposition, no resistance and no petition for appeal. Every jarring dissonance must be muzzled before it is uttered. Those who demur are stamped upon and snuffed out. The land must be purged of ugly scars and cleansed of infectious scabs. Christians were once scapegoats and sacrificial lambs, and then we became heretics and outcasts. Now we are the lepers of omniscient secular enlightenment. Blessed are those who conform.

  • sarky

    The problem is the christians with the loudest voices tend to be the haters and bigots. Even the most liberal christian adheres to a book that promotes bigotry.

    • The Explorer

      Every driver adheres to a book that promotes bigotry. The Highway Code says that some actions are right and others are wrong.

      • sarky

        Yes, but for practical reasons and not based on ideology.

        • Martin

          Sarky

          I’d have said that requiring driving on one particular side of the road was ideology rather than practicality.

          • Athanasius

            Did it never occurred to you that Christian morality IS based on practicality?

          • The Explorer

            For atheism, a truth that dare not speak its name. Atheism would much prefer Christian morality to be arbitrary.

          • Martin

            Athanasius

            Applying the manufacturers instructions is certainly much more practical than trying to fix it yourself. 😉

        • The Explorer

          Modernist definition of a bigot: one whose beliefs about right and wrong are based on faith rather than reason.
          .
          Postmodern definition of a bigot: one who believes that some things are actually right and wrong, rather than a matter of opinion.

          By Modernist standards, you aren’t a bigot. By Postmodern standards, you are.

    • Phil R

      We have seen your atheist states.

      Think North Korea.

      Think Soviet Union,

      Think China under Mao

      Lovely places to live and die. (Usually die)

      • sarky

        Phil, in case you hadn’t noticed you’re
        pretty much living in one now. Instead of trotting out the same old tired examples, how about looking at the now.

        • Phil R

          We are on the road to the Atheist state that much is agreed.

          Just showing where the end point is as we have been there before and it is not pretty.

          BTW. The definition of bigot has changed it seems. It now means everyone who disagrees with my (Mostly left liberal) anti Christian viewpoint.

        • Phil R

          I had noticed that we appear to be heading towards utopia.

          Well done you atheists. Everyone in the UK is so happy living the atheist dream where no bad things ever happen.

          Better?

          So please amend my file to indicate that I have made a supportive statement and further investigation of my allegiance to the true religion of selfishness (Headed by the new High Priest (Insert a suitable genderless term here) Dawkins) is not in question.

      • Old Blowers

        Ooh dear Phil..No you have got it all wrong. They have learnt from their mistakes and NOW it will be Utopia..
        We breed a better more caring superior moral type of atheist in ol Blighty. Stands to reason from reading their comment’s here *Chuckles*

        • sarky

          Unlike the caring, superior christians we seem to breed Hey?

          • Old Blowers

            We don’t want to take over the world whereas YOU DO!!!

            Where upon this earth now or in history can caring atheism ever be shown. Atheism parasites off it’s Christian host where they reside, spewing poison out and claiming Christian morals AS THEIRS!!

            Where are YOUR food banks, Where are YOUR charities etc WHERE OH WHERE?? They are always founded first by people of loving faith, atheists mainly join in later and then cast doubt on the reasons why Christians do this in the first place. Evangelism? OF COURSE!!!

            It’s called giving a reason for the hope that is in you?!!

            Plagiarism lives in the Atheist heart where not one new idea has sprang from to enhance a mans life. It is best defined as Anti-ism to all that is good that is known!

          • sarky

            Arhh busted. Must fly to my secret Island base, plop my cat on my lap and plot the destruction of christianity. (P.s. We don’t have the great commission, you do)
            As for charity, just Google non christian charities – there are hundreds.
            What’s wrong with plagarism?? Nothing wrong with taking the good bits and jettisoning the troublesome god bits. Face it blowers its a brave new world with no place for the hocus pocus of yesteryear.

          • Old Blowers

            Arhh busted. Must fly to my secret Island base, plop my cat on my lap
            and plot the destruction of christianity.”

            You are an imposter, sir. There can be only ONE Blofeld!! *Unless of course I fancy cloning a couple for safety’s sake if 007 is on the prowl!* (P.s. We don’t have the great
            commission, you do).

            The Great Commission of Christianity is the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples that they spread his teachings to all the nations of the world, that He died for men and is at the Father’s right hand.

            It has become a tenet in Christian theology for Christians in emphasizing ministry, missionary work, evangelism, and baptism. *Hardly a call for world domination, Sark, now is it? It’s NOT Spectre*

          • sarky

            Could be:-
            Sad
            People
            Entertaining
            Christ
            That
            Rarely
            Evangelise.

            🙂

          • Old Blowers

            Excellent..Such a waste. Do try and leave the Sith and come to where you will be loved and given a proper name and you can loose the Darth Sulk tag 🙂

          • sarky

            “Only at the end do you realise the power of the dark side”

          • cacheton

            Can you actually tell the difference between a useful idea and a limiting idea? All those moral ideas that atheists espouse which are also christian ideas are espoused because they are useful, not because they are christian.
            There are also some very limiting christian ideas which atheists do not espouse, because they bizarrely encourage the opposite of what christianity is supposed to stand for – hatred, discrimination etc. Unfortunately many christians do not seem to notice this inherent contradiction.
            This has nothing to do with plagiarsm.

          • Old Blowers

            This has nothing to do with plagiarism.

            Plagarise ;

            to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own

            or
            to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

            and especially in atheisms case;
            to use (another’s production) without crediting the source. It is the intellectual property of God’s and is NOT for atheists to claim and any alteration to it would be classed as vandalism as the thief is NOT the owner

            Like buying a Mercedes and ripping of the emblem and sticking on’ cupped hands’ emblem and calling it a ‘Cacheton

          • cacheton

            Intellectual property of God!! That’s the funniest thing I’ve read for some time!
            And how would you even begin to prove that, as even the bible states itself that it was written by humans!

      • cacheton

        LOL. They all pursued their ideologies with RELIGIOUS fervour!!!

        • Old Blowers

          Well if you are on this blog regularly you will see their conviction and fanaticism is unashamedly of the religious cult type!

        • Martin

          Cacheton

          All Atheists pursue their ideologies with religious fervour, indeed their Atheism is the religion of self-worship.

          • cacheton

            Any religion is a form of self worship, as they all encourage the ‘I am right and others are wrong’ mindset.

          • The Explorer

            Expand that to any belief system. ‘The God Delusion’, for instance, is written from an ‘I am right and others are wrong’ mindset. Nietzsche’s madman in ‘The Joyful Science’ believes that he has a truth no one else has seen yet. And the madman is proclaiming the death of God.

          • cacheton

            Absolutely. I certainly do expand that to any belief system.

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            Worshipping God is quite different from worshipping yourself.

          • cacheton

            I thought christians were supposed to believe that god was omnipresent. That includes inside humans.

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            No it doesn’t, and I suspect that comment has more to do with wishing to hide from God than any thought on your part.

          • cacheton

            What logic are you using to believe that god is omnipresent but not inside humans? This is precisely what Jesus showed – that he is inside humans, and that it is even even possible in incarnation to fully express divinity. Surely it is the person who believes that god is only ‘somewhere else’ who is hiding.

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            No, that is not what Jesus showed. Jesus was unique in that He had both a God nature and a Man nature in one person. And since God is a spirit he is not contained in anything, he is not contained inside a human.

          • cacheton

            God is a spirit…

            I thought christians believed that god is father, son and holy spirit.
            And no, god is not contained inside a human, humans are ‘contained’; inside god.
            Where does jesus say that he is unique? What’s all this about ‘this and more shall you do’, and that we are all sons and daughters of god?

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            Since God is a spirit it follows that the persons of the Trinity are also spirit. The difference in nature between the physical and the spiritual means that neither is a container.

            Do you not recall that Jesus said this:

            I and the Father are one.
            (John 10:30 [ESV]

            Not one other human can say that. As the beginning of that gospel says:

            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
            (John 1:1-5 [ESV])

          • cacheton

            ‘Since God is a spirit it follows that the persons of the Trinity are also spirit.’
            Yes. But the spirit can, and does, take flesh. This is what Jesus showed, or do you somehow think Jesus’s physical body was not really human? You quote the bible passages which reinforce my argument, whilst at the same time disagreeing with me! Most interesting! I think it might have something to do with this;

            ‘Not one other human can say that.’

            Why not? Surely the church’s ministry should be answering that question, and bringing people to the state of consciousness that Christ embodied, rather than keeping them separate from god – reciting prayers and singing hymns saying how awful humans are and how great god is – and telling them that they will never make it. It seems to me that prayers often ask god to reveal himself, help us understand x or y, lighten our darkness etc, as if it is god that has to do the work, not us! The church would be guiding people do that work if it really had human spiritual wellbeing as its’ aim, instead of maintaining this state of separation from god from which it can manipulate people into believing that they need it to reach ‘salvation’, without being able to articulate what ‘salvation’ really is.

            That was a bit of a rant wasn’t it!

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            Neither spirit nor body are containers for the other and no, it isn’t what Jesus showed. If anything Jesus showed what true obedience to God looks like, but an obedience beyond any of the sons of Adam.

            The Church’s ministry is proclaiming forgiveness to the guilty, not a change of any state of conciousness. Jesus’ primary purpose for coming was to die, to bear the punishment that by rights His people should have borne, to be punished on their behalf. We are separate from God, sinful, broken creatures that we are. Jesus’ death makes it possible for us to be adopted as children of God.

          • cacheton

            Martin are you a child of god?
            Am I a child of god?
            Was/is jesus a child of god?

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            Yes, no, no.

            Let me explain, I have been adopted into the family of God. You show know evidence of such an adoption. Jesus is God.

          • cacheton

            ‘I have been adopted into the family of God.’
            How do you know that?
            What evidence do you show, or think you show, of such an adoption?
            What do you make of the statement that all are equal in the eyes of god?
            Jesus is God, and also the son of god. No confusion there then!

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            Jesus’ role within the Trinity is ‘Son’, absolutely no confusion, the Bible is quite clear.

            Clearly that Bible doesn’t say that all are equal in the eyes of God:

            As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. (Romans 9:13 [ESV]

            God chooses whom He will save:

            But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— (Ephesians 2:4-5 [ESV])

            And God makes the promise that none who turn to Him will ever be abandoned

            No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 9:37-39 [ESV])

            Since God has promised it, I rely on His promise.

          • cacheton

            And you know that the bible is the word of god because…?

            Do you know what circular thinking and circular arguments are?

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            Circular? Hardly, since the Bible is not one book but 66, written by ~40 writers over ~2k years. When you’ve met the author you understand His work.

          • cacheton

            Well quite. Sometimes it seems you do not understand what you yourself write.

            ‘…written by ~40 writers…’ in one sentence and ‘When you’ve met the author’ in the next. How could you possibly have met any of those authors? Or are writers and authors not the same thing?

            Your answer also indicates you have no idea what circular thinking and circular arguments are. You could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            I was quite careful in what I wrote, the author of the Bible is God and He used men to write it, as a man uses a pen. So since I have met God, I have met the author. You will one day meet that author, may it be in mercy in this life and not in judgement in the next.

            I see you are referring me to that great source of confusion on the internet, wikipedia. It’s hardly a good reference.

            BTW, since all knowledge begins and ends with God, there is a case for circular reasoning.

          • cacheton

            The problem with your analogy is that pens are inanimate objects without desires and influences of their own, men are not. Much, even most, of the words in the bible are very obviously tainted by those influences and desires, which is only to be expected.
            Yet many people still cling to the literal words claiming they are words of god, failing to discern between the divine influence and the human ego. What results is human failings being justified and even sometimes glorified, and people who do this feel they should not be challenged because ‘it is my religion’.

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            A pen will impart some of its nature to the writing, just so the writer’s style is seen in what the Author caused to be written.

            Every word of the Bible is chosen by God for its meaning and so is important in understanding what God has said.

    • The Explorer

      People who hate animals torture them. I love animals, and I hate to see them mistreated. The same word ‘hate’ covers two very different psychological conditions.

      • sarky

        Same meat different gravy. Hate is hate, pretty sure there is no distinction in the bible.

        • … there is. Hate of people and hate of behaviour. Two different positions that liberal-progressives confuse.

          • sarky

            The two seem to be intertwined with most christians. Shouldn’t John 3:15 be a warning? ?

          • John 3:15. ‘……That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.’

            And your point is?

          • sarky

            Sorry 1 john 3:15. But I guess you already knew that.

        • The Explorer

          So hatred is wrong. So I must love cruelty to animals, child rape and torture?

    • Watchman

      It seems you are a good teacher, sarky; they are following your example!

      • sarky

        Sorry, where have I expressed hate or bigotry??
        Maybe major disagreement, but that’s about it.

        • Watchman

          It’s really a matter of perception. From where I’m standing you express your hatred and bigotry rather openly, but you obviously don’t see it that way. Of such differences are politics and warfare the fruits.

  • Phil R

    If the Americans don’t want him.

    Send him over here.

    Please!

  • Linus

    Christians should ask themselves why nobody wants anything to do with them.

    They’re busy writing themselves a melodramatic script where they play the role of the poor minority oppressed by a hateful majority when the truth of the matter is that no Christian suffers from any kind of real oppression in any Western country. The only thing that has changed since secular government became a reality is that Christians no longer have the right to impose their beliefs on other people. Your own archbishop acknowledges this. Why can’t you?

    Whenever I read overblown claims of persecution like the one above, I’m always reminded of a whiny rich kid with an entitlement syndrome the size of a planet who complains bitterly that nobody wants to play with him. Why is that, he wonders? I’m a nice person, aren’t I?

    The bald fact of the matter is no, he isn’t. What that whiny rich kid really needs is a looking glass that will show him what all the other children see: a spoiled brat who lays law down the law, appoints himself referee and tells all the other kids what the rules are, and insists that everyone plays by them “or my Dad will beat you up”.

    Unfortunately for Christians, the rest of us are wise to you now. We know we can ignore you because this fictional Dad of yours is nowhere to be seen. You’ve taken the place you’ve chosen for yourselves in society as the fat, whiny and deeply unpopular kid who demands to be loved and obeyed because he thinks he’s better than everyone else, when the reality of the situation is that he’s no better than anyone else, and nobody else can stand being around him.

    Listening to all that carping and whining and cries of “it’s not fair!” all day long would try the patience of a saint, if such a thing existed. Far better to leave you to sulk in your corner. You can always come back to the game once you’ve reconciled yourself to the fact that it’s no longer stacked in your favour.

    • Phil R

      You seem to go on a lot about fat people and fathers who are not there.

      Was you own dad absent, overtly strict and overweight?

      Is that your real issue, that is a poor relationship with your own father?

      • sarky

        I see the brain still hasn’t evolved.

      • … and baldness too. Question is which of his parents was fat and which was bald.

      • Linus

        Ah, so we’re resorting to amateur Freudian psychoanalysis, are we?

        Sorry to disappoint you, but my father was perfectly height/weight proportionate, and a very loving, fair and balanced parent. He was very much present rather than absent.

        I know that doesn’t fit your script. Perhaps because your script is total nonsense.

    • The Explorer

      Linus old hinkypunk,

      If your opening sentence were true you wouldn’t have written it, because in doing so you are having something to do with us.

      HInkypunk: in folklore, a mischievous creature that seeks to lead astray. Also known as ‘Puck’, or ‘Robin Goodfelllow’. ‘Puck’ would be an okay definition of Linus: as in something you whack with a hockey stick. ‘Goodfellow’: hmm.

      • cacheton

        ‘If your opening sentence were true you wouldn’t have written it, because in doing so you are having something to do with us.’

        Yes. Because you are interesting. It really is fascinating discovering how people who try to impose their version of truth, which Happy Jack accuses Linus of doing (falsely as far as I can see), cannot see that they themselves are doing exactly that. The bible has something to say about planks and splinters.

        As Linus said, the only thing that has changed is that Christians no longer have the right to impose their beliefs on other people. What is wrong with that?

        • Old Blowers

          “The bible has something to say about planks and splinters.”
          Ah, Holy Scripture!!

          It also says plenty about fools and their hearts;

          “Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is
          no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.

          Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

          It’s always a one way street with Atheism, ain’t it?

          • cacheton

            So, all atheists are corrupt, because your book says so. Etc

            Do you know what emotional blackmail is? Can you recognise it?

          • Old Blowers

            Gods words and NOT mine. Proverbs cannot be claimed as the wise ramblings of Old Blowers.

          • cacheton

            And nor can it be claimed as the wise ramblings of a non-incarnate god, as he would not have had a hand to write it with! Or do you reckon the words just appeared as if by magic….

          • Old Blowers

            The Judge says to the convicted Thief. “You have been told of the Law of the land regarding to this behaviour and you have been found guilty of theft and you will serve 5 years inside HM prison and I hope I shall not see you in front of this bench again.

            To which the convicted thief retorts “So you are saying I am a thief for committing a crime I don’t agree is a crime, I call it perpetual borrowing, just because you say it is? I don’t even recognise this court and your authority to threaten me with punishment. You know what this is?
            Do you know what emotional blackmail is? Can you recognise it, Your Honour?”

            Make that 7 years for contempt of this court and it’s authority!!

          • Martin

            Cacheton

            All mankind is corrupt, even Christians. You can see it all around you if you bother to look.

        • dannybhoy

          Christianity never did have the right to impose their beliefs on others.
          Historically the church that brought the Christian gospel to Europe became in time the prevailing authority.
          That influence is now fast fading and a form of totalitarian paganism beckons..

        • The Explorer

          Because other people now have the right to impose their beliefs upon Christians,

          • cacheton

            I assume bakeries are in your mind. Maybe this problem could be overcome if the relevant bakeries stated their beliefs that they were not prepared to compromise on up front before people ordered cakes.

            All these other issues like SSM and no prayers before meetings are stopping christians imposing their beliefs, rather than others imposing any beliefs on christians.

          • The Explorer

            Wider than that. I was thinking PC. PC seeks to impose its view of virtue on everyone else.

          • cacheton

            PC? Is that ‘politically correct’? If so, then I don’t see what you’re getting at.

          • The Explorer

            Sancta simplicitas.

        • The Explorer

          You believe something to be true. You would like others to believe it as well. There are two ways of doing this.
          1. If you’re a Marxist, you kill all those who disagree with you. That way, the remnant share your opinions.
          2. You try to persuade others to accept your position. That, by and large, is the stance taken on this Blog.

          • cacheton

            ‘You believe something to be true. You would like others to believe it as well.’
            Why? And if you believe something to be true, surely if you cannot explain why it is hardly surprising that others take no notice.

          • The Explorer

            Look at the lamenting going on among Labour supporters. They believe Toryism to be a great evil. The country has voted for the wrong party. If they didn’t believe that, they wouldn’t be so vocal.

          • cacheton

            It is not difficult to explain why they think Toryism is a great evil, however. Especially if they have any idea about christian values – oops wrong thread.

      • Linus

        You can have something to do with a person without wanting to. There’s a difference between desiring to carry out an action and actually doing it.

        In a perfect world where we weren’t troubled by the sound of whining Christians bemoaning their unjust and terrible fate, none of us would have anything to do with you. But here you are, spouting your terrible poison all over the Internet and doing your best to attack and harm the LGBT community and anyone else you don’t agree with. So we have to have something to do with you in order to show the world what you’re really like.

        Of course most of the world can see what you are so plainly, they don’t need our help. All that whining and bitching and tearing of hair and rending of garments says it all to those who have eyes to see. But some few poor naive souls, especially those unfortunate enough to have been raised by Christian parents, can easily be taken in by your posturing and melodrama. I’m here to ensure they understand who you really are. And I think they do. You can’t help revealing the hypocrisy and animus that motivate you. All you need is a little poke from time to time…

    • Since we’re being personal, Linus, Jack wondered if this reveals more about you than Christians:

      “… a whiny rich kid with an entitlement syndrome the size of a planet who complains bitterly that nobody wants to play with him. Why is that, he wonders? I’m a nice person, aren’t I?

      • Linus

        Wonder away. But I’m not the one insisting that everyone follow my rules and refrain from marrying or making personal reproductive choices because I don’t approve. Who cares if you approve or not?

        • “No wonder why there’s no mirrors on these walls no more
          You can’t tell me why you’re so terrified of beautiful
          Scared of the good more than the evil
          Scared of the light more than the dark
          Scared of the truth so much more than the lie”,/i>

          • Linus

            Mirror mirror on the wall, eh?

            I know you spend all day admiring your own reflection in your perfecting Christian mirror. The problem is the rest of us see the real you. And it’s not a pretty sight.

          • “Mirror, mirror on the wall
            Who is the fairest of them all
            Mirror, mirror oh you’re so unfair to all of the beautiful ones”

            How’s the ‘wedding’ plans coming along, old fruit?

          • Grouchy Jack

            What’s all the fuss with homosexual ‘marriage’? They have been putting rings on their fingers for years. When Jack learned Stephen Fry was getting ‘married’ to a toy-boy, he wondered what a homosexual cougar was called – A Pink Panther.

        • Martin

          Linus

          The simple answer is that marriage can only be between man and woman and two men or two women have no reproductive choices to make.

          • Linus

            In which case, where’s the problem? I won’t be getting married in a few days time and no woman has ever had an abortion before, and never will.

            Only I am getting married and millions of women have had and will continue to have abortions.

            Just because you don’t recognise reality doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

          • Grouchy Jack

            “I won’t be getting married in a few days time … “

            This is so true – it’ll be a fancy dress charade in an attempt to gain public approval and to show off a bit. Hope your sister is invited and exacts revenge for your jealous sneering at her wedding ceremony.

          • Martin

            Linus

            Since marriage is only between a man and a woman I leave you to come to your own conclusions.

          • Linus

            Wrong, as usual. Marriage is between any two consenting adults who are not related within the prohibited degrees, and who are not already married.

            I point you to the equal marriage law as absolute proof of this. Rant all you like about what you think marriage should be, but do try to keep your fantasy world and the real world apart in your head, otherwise you’ll end up in all sorts of trouble when you try to deny legally married couples their rights under the law. And you’ll only have youself to blame.

            Of course my comments here are sure to elicit another “marriage is only between men and women” statement from you. As a fully paid-up member of the Christian Autistic Spectrum Debating Society, that’s the only way you know how to argue. You keep on repeating the same phrase over and over, no matter how completely your opponent has demolished it. And above all, you always have to get the last word in, because he whose words are followed by silence has won the debate, hasn’t he?

            ‘Fraid not, sad obsessive one. The last man standing talks to thin air because his opponents, having already won the debate, and the audience, having been convinced by their arguments, have shrugged their shoulders and gone off about their business, leaving you to shout your outraged and completely unconvincing arguments into the wind.

            Whatever you say and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, equal marriage is a reality you’re going to have to deal with.

            By all means be angry about that fact, but once your tantrum has run out of steam, which it will at some point because even the most petulant and uncooperative child needs to rest eventually, you’d better think of ways in which you can adjust to the new reality, otherwise you’ll end up like tbe whack jobs over at Westboro Baptist Church.

          • Martin

            Linus

            No, marriage is between one man and one woman, that is the way God created it and that is what it will be until the end of time. No government of men can change that.You have been conned.

            The ‘equal marriage law’ is an example of the idiocy of law, a simple nonsense. It has no validity in any way. I’m afraid the one with the inability to understand are those like you who go around imagining that you control your own life and that your desires are all that matter. You have demolished nothing, all you have done is display your folly.

            You cannot win such a debate for your argument is with your maker, even the nature of your body testifies to your folly. Marriage is the joining of the different and you would seek to make it the joining of the same. How silly is that.

            What you are claiming isn’t even equal, for you place restrictions on it. Can a man marry his computer, his pet? May a woman marry her grandmother or perhaps a football team? Doubtless you will claim that is silly but it is no more silly than what you are demanding.

            So drop your obsession with yourself, your desire for what you want and realise that the God you know exists has placed limits on your behaviour, limits that you have overstepped, that condemn you. You are a condemned rebel, awaiting sentence, sentence of death. God offers you mercy, however, mercy dependent upon your bended knee now. Either you bow the knee now in obedience or you will bow the knee later when judgement is spoken over your head. You are precisely like those at Westboro Baptist Church, creating your own religion, your god created in the image of yourself.

        • Yep … ” a whiny rich kid with an entitlement syndrome the size of a planet who complains bitterly that nobody wants to play with him.”

        • alternative_perspective

          Quite, so if we say your personal a-reproductive choices are Biblically…. abhorrent you’ll happily go on your way feeling enlightened albeit in strong disagreement (obviously) by encountering an opposing view. And not pause for a moment to feel condemned or attacked safe in the knowledge we live in a pluralistic society where we can share our beliefs in safety without fear of violence or political persecution….. oh wait?

      • magnolia

        Come now, he is poor, feels no entitlement to anything, and a man of deep humility, putting the needs of others before his own, always. And he is in great social demand, hence the need to type under the table with his toes those lengthy posts…..while simultaneously giving to the poor and solving the world’s political problems on the phone.

        • Menagriee a trois …. menagerie a trois … how insensitive of Heureux Jack.

    • bluedog

      Well done Linus, you’ve perfectly illustrated Jeb Bush’s statement, ‘It strikes me that most of the criticism directed at believers in our day is drawn from hostile caricature. That’s just the easy way of avoiding honest discussion. It is a posture that only deepens distrust, instead of inviting understanding.’

      • sarky

        Pity christianity doesn’t extend that same understanding. It seems we have to offer understanding but dont get it in return. (At least not without condemnation)

        • carl jacobs

          The problem isn’t a lack of understanding. The problem is that we understand each other all too well.

          • sarky

            You might be right!!

        • Martin

          Sarky

          What is there to understand, sex outside the marriage of one man to one woman is simply wrong. But we won’t be calling for someone to behead you, or even close down your business.

          • Old Blowers

            Or throw you from the top of Tesco’s car park in Orpington!!

          • dannybhoy

            Aaaaaah.,.
            I was looking forward to that.

          • Martin

            Not heard of that.

          • sarky

            Only because you no longer have any power. Christians in the past wouldn’t have thought twice about brutal executions.

          • magnolia

            I am virtually pacifist, and there have always been those of that kind within the Church, the Quakers for example. For the first three hundred years the early, and rather purer Church was pacifist. So what are you talking about?

          • sarky

            Well I’m sitting in a park opposite a memorial for women burned at the stake for being witches. Hows that for a start?

          • magnolia

            Well I guess they weren’t burned by those who disagreed with the death penalty, like me, on Christian grounds. Even the Inquisition “thought twice” about executions, or they wouldn’t have had long trials. Seriously though spiritual warfare is a given in the Church; it gets very nasty at times; were these women involved? Who knows? Was it right to burn them if they were. No. Was there provocation from them? Much much too late to assess the evidence.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            I’m a Baptist, when did the likes of me ever have power?

        • alternative_perspective

          Who condemns you?
          If I say A is wrong. And you are a frequent visitor to A and you feel condemnation then its you condemning yourself, not me.

          Even if I know you visit A frequently, you have no reason to accept my proposition regarding A, then still it is you condemning yourself against the moral standard I propose. All I’m condemning is A.

          Sure, on occasion there’s a few overly zealous types who think they’re the Holy Spirit and will tell you to your face your wrong but they’re in the minority.

          Sincerely, rarely do I hear condemnation of people from Christians but very often I hear people who feel condemned because the Christian has been resolute in their moral position. This isn’t the fault of the Christian, is he or she to remain quiet because the other person is so emotionally and morally insecure they cannot countenance opposing views?

          If though you are referring to presentation and how one conveys one’s opinions then I agree. I often think Christians are too unfeeling and not responsive enough to the emotional well being of the other… and that IS a failing.

      • Linus

        Not hostile caricature, objective observation.

        Christians complain that they’re treated like lepers, I offer an explanation, and suddenly it’s all my fault?

        Honestly, you don’t even take the trouble of reading your own scriptures, do you? Do the phrases “motes of dust” and “logs” mean anything to you?

        Instead of crying about how unpopular you are, you might well reflect on why that is. Nobody likes you because you behave like bullies. If you can’t or won’t see that, there’s no hope for you.

        • bluedog

          ‘Not hostile caricature, objective observation.’ Hostile caricature as a tool of your mockery, and you know it.

          ‘Nobody likes you because you behave like bullies.’ In what way? We didn’t impose the political correctness that is slowly stifling all debate. Hate crime is not a Christian concept. It’s a secularist device for the coercive imposition of a certain view of human society.

          • Linus

            Hate crime is the most Christian concept of them all. You hate anyone who disputes your power to dictate morality.

            The LGBT community has paid the price of Christian hatred ever since the religion was first invented. We’re still paying it in many regions of the world. Speak to a few gay Africans who’ve been repeatedly beaten and persecuted by baying Christian mobs and you’ll understand what we have to protect ourselves against.

            Even here in the West fundamentalist Christians want to murder us. A Christian lawyer is currently trying to force a ballot in California that would make homosexuality a capital crime punishable by execution with “bullets to the head”. This is the real face of Christian “love”. The word “hatred” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

          • William Lewis

            I don’t hate anyone who disagrees with my morality nor have I ever had any power to dictate it.

    • Old Blowers

      I have very very bad news for you, Linus. There is a one world religion coming and it ain’t Christian and if you don’t get with the program of pseudo god worship and conform to his mark of ownership, well it’s ‘off wiz hez ead’ and the newly converted wicked will be cheering to see it plop in the basket.

      We believers will be watching all this from the mezzanine, in despair that men such as yourself refused to believe there was a God of Sovereignty and you had a diabolical enemy leading you towards a path of futility and eternal death because, like him, you are filled with arrogance and pride and care only for yourself and what today may bring for you!

      “Christians should ask themselves why nobody wants anything to do with them.”

      Whether you are gay or atheist or sadly in your case BOTH, you are in a very small minority and the majority of people loosely associate with christian values despite their illiteracy regarding how these arrived in our nation. You superior intellectuals do NOT represent joe public and are lost in your own bubble of self righteous indignation that anyone could believe differently than you!

      Sadly for atheists, people are fickle and soon change allegiance with offers of bread and circus and the false signs of miracles to come.

      Your ilk will not last long when he comes, as it’s all or nothing for Satan’s man!

      • Linus

        My ilk will be here when your false religion has gone the way of sun worship and the cult of Zeus.

        Of course by that stage we’ll all be long gone and some other Atheist will be laughing at the adherent of some other arbitary and completely fabricated superstition. We’ll probably never breed stupidity completely out of human genome, so new religions will spring up like mushrooms with every new generation.

        That doesn’t matter as long as common sense controls the world. Which it does and will going forward. Religionists can chant whatever magic spells they like, it will make no difference to the triumph of reason.

        • alternative_perspective

          By that time you’ll be a theist and wishing you’d converted earlier.

          On a different point, if homosexuality is proven to have a genetic or epigenetic cause then it will likely soon be detectable and editable. Except for a few very liberal types I somewhat expect you to be in the last few generations of people born homosexual – its all personal choice you know.

          But I do agree with you, Christianity will disappear from the face of the Earth, then shortly thereafter Jesus will return to it.

          Bringing blessing and justice to all.

          Let’s hope for your sake, that your hopeful (and groundless) assertion that its all made up is true, lest you be found in-front of the Almighty; having to explain why you substituted truth for a lie… I wonder how you’ll answer that?

          • He’ll point out God made him French (on his father’s side) …. what could He reasonably expect?

        • Old Blowers

          One thing is sure and that is people have been prophesying the death of Christianity and it will not happen because God says so.

          Your comment is as meaningless and as fruit bearing as Voltaire’s, who said that God would die among the people and be forgotten within several decades.

          The stupid sinner now lies eaten by maggots whilst myself and others since have repented and believed on Christ and the faith marches on.

          Man is inherently religious because we were created that way except separation from God has left a massive void, which Satan will soon fill with false signs and wonders and deceive many despite your claims of logic and reason and common sense. It has been foretold and God never lies!

        • The Explorer

          Sun worship is booming. It’s called climate change, and has millions of believers.

    • “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

      • Linus

        “And there shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend’s hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o’clock.”

        The Gospel According to Brian, 6:12. And a great deal more sense it makes than anything in the bible.

    • Little Black Censored

      “…nobody wants anything to do with them…”
      With those words or prejudice-projection in your first line, why would anybody read the rest?

      • Linus

        You’re the ones complaining that nobody wants to play with you. I’m merely observing that I agree.

    • Johnny Rottenborough

      @ Linus—Unfortunately for Christians, the rest of us are wise to you now

      The percentage of the world’s population classed by Pew as unaffiliated is expected to drop ‘from 16% of the world’s total population in 2010 to 13% in 2050’. Reversing that trend will take quite an effort from enlightened beings such as yourself. I have no axe to grind, by the way, inhabiting, as I do, the limbo between belief and unbelief.

      • Linus

        I live in Europe, where the percentage of what you refer to as “unaffiliated” is much higher than the global average, and in France, where it’s higher still.

        Why? Because we’re educated. Education kills superstition.

        • alternative_perspective

          “…it has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and labouring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”

        • Old Blowers

          Why? Because we’re educated. (Then why do you vote in a socialist pygmy?) Education kills superstition. (But appears not to kill Stupidity!!) Vive L’indifference, mon Athee!!

          • A fait acopian …. tete de veau … tete de veau

          • avi barzel

            You only need enough education to redefine stupidity and a state to enshrine the definition into law and, voila, you’re home-free.

        • The Explorer

          Marx had a doctorate. So had Goebbels. One of the death camp commandants had two doctorates. Look at the stuff they believed in.

          • Linus

            Extremist and mentally unstable individuals exist at every level of society. But taken across the population as a whole, education is the best indicator of socially liberal and tolerant attitudes, just as religion is the best indicator of socially conservative and intolerant attitudes.

            All the studies bear it out: Christians are, as a group, significantly less well educated than Atheists. They also have, again on average, lower IQs.

          • The Explorer

            Yes. Good points, and I’m sure there’s much in what you say. A variant of J S Mill’s contention that not all conservatives are stupid people, but stupid people tend to be conservative. Bertrand Russell complained that there is not a single sentence in the New Testament in praise of intelligence. Atheists tend to be independent thinkers, and independent thought requires intelligence.
            On the other hand, I do not personally accept the validity of being bracketed with other faiths that I believe to be untrue. A comparison of intelligence levels between one faith and another would be interesting, but hazardous for the researcher. It would probably lead to the sort of academic censure that greeted ‘The Bell Curve’ and even be a death sentence from a certain quarter if the research delivered the wrong result. There’s also the issue of different types of intelligence, and whether some of these lend themselves more readily to faith than others.
            Again, statistical evidence consistently shows that British church schools deliver better results than their ordinary state-school equivalents. I saw a documentary on one of England’s worst-achieving schools. The kids gave no evidence of being religious believers, but I would not dignify them with being atheists, either. Unthinking materialists probably sums it up best.

        • Linus, you are so funny.
          You live in France where there are two evangelical churches being planted every single week. Hundreds and hundreds of people are coming to faith.
          And whilst I would usually get any too excited about the Church of Rome, when I visited France a couple of years ago pour faire le (or is it ‘la’?) jumelage, our host family invited us to attend their church with them. From what I’d read, I expected two old men and a dog, but au contraire the place was choc-a-bloc.
          You see, Linus, the people of France are getting fed up with the sterility and the hopelessness of your wretched, pathetic, meaningless secular society, and they are starting to search for the living God. And in ever-increasing numbers, they are finding Him.

          • William Lewis

            Good to know Martin but, unfortunately, Linus is currently on a fact-free diet, perhaps in preparation for his “wedding”, so your information will be of no use in forming his world-view or disseminating his assertions. C’est la vie.

          • Linus

            Hundreds and hundreds, eh?

            I’ll bet it’s more like tens and tens at most. At that rate you’ve got a way to go.

            It’s typical of the myopic parochialism so common among Christians that when they see 5 more bums than usual on seats in their local church, all of a sudden it’s a revival and the whole country is turning to religion.

            Christianity is an increasingly marginal force in France. It can still call upon a relatively poorly educated and conservative rural population for some support, but in the cities it’s in terminal decline. In Paris it’s virtually non-existent. And as all power is concentrated here in the capital and our state is explicitly secular, a few malcontent country bumpkins won’t change anything.

            By all means “plant” as many churches as you like. Apart from a few grannies, the obligatory contingent of immigrants and the odd mentally fragile zealot, they’ll go the way of all churches in France. Empty except at Easter and Christmas, when people attend church as part of the seasonal tradition rather than from any great and sudden religious conviction.

            Let’s just say your “hundreds and hundreds” (i.e. twenty or so) converts don’t inspire any fear or worry at the heart of our secular society. There will always be a small number of contrarians and malcontents determined to sail against the wind. Add in a few obsessive/compulsives and the odd Aspie and mix them up with the Africans and Antillais and hey presto, there’s the next five years of growth in church attendance accounted for.

          • No. It’s hundreds and hundreds. ie. several thousands. And, whether you like it or not, it’s in Paris.
            I’m sunning myself in Madeira at the moment, but when I get back I can document it for you.
            BTW, is Caen rural? It was there that the Roman Catholic church was full to bursting.

          • Linus

            Caen has an enormous Polish community. ‘Nuff said…

          • You have raised clutching at straws into an art form.

    • Martin

      Linus

      “Christians should ask themselves why nobody wants anything to do with them.”

      We know why, we’ve known all the time. Indeed when Christians are really behaving as they should they face opposition. I cannot recall a single play, either serious or comedy, broadcast on television that has been sympathetic to real Christians.

      If you want to see whiny you only have to look at your own posts and those of your fellows. And you will see God if you actually bother to look. As for “it’s not fair” you only have to look at the stupidity of so called ‘gay’ marriage, which is neither gay nor equal, just a silly excuse for the whingers.

    • dannybhoy

      “Whenever I read overblown claims of persecution like the one above, I’m
      always reminded of a whiny rich kid with an entitlement syndrome the
      size of a planet who complains bitterly that nobody wants to play with
      him. Why is that, he wonders? I’m a nice person, aren’t I?”

      I’m confused Linus.
      Are you addressing the issue, or back on your persecution kick?

    • alternative_perspective

      Whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, blah…. he’s an overblown prick therefore everything he says must be wrong.
      Tiresome, predictable and typically lacking in substance.

      • Linus

        Yes, your comments are all of these things. Inevitably so. Belief in superstitious nonsense makes for a very unstable personality and one hell of a sense of grievance.

        • alternative_perspective

          I’ve no grievance, I’m quite a contented chap really. I quite expect persecution. I’m just hoping to avoid decapitation.
          But here’s a primary school rhyme that may help you in your future postings: “I know you are, you said you are but what am I”.
          I recommend you copy and paste under every response that’s dared to challenge your grace (little ‘g’) and repeat until the teacher blows her whistle and you have to line up for the end of play time.

      • Monee diefuie … monee diefuie

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace, Where have we
    heard this before?

    In todays ‘Mail’ Pg10, it states that the new Equalities Minister Caroline
    Dinenage, MP for Gosport, had opposed gay marriage two years ago and warned
    that the state had ‘no right’ to redefine the institution.

    Yesterday she did a U-turn. she now fully supports SSM and she was fully committed
    to advancing the cause of LGBT.

    Similarly, Nicky Morgan was appointed to Secretary of State for Education last
    year. She too had voted against SSM and as soo as she was appointed to a
    government post, she changed her mind.

    Is this a coincidence or has DC something to do with it? Talk about equality and
    discrimination, they might as well have a sign at No.10 saying, ‘No Entry
    unless you support LGBT issues’.
    With such Bigotry in the World against Christians, even by those who claim to be Christian, the opportunity to present the Gospel in the discussion place is dammed.

    • Old Blowers

      Will not be long before Cranmer’s blog is banned under hate crime legislation and the Inspector finds himself frogmarched *courtesy of Linus’ testimony giggles* and is residing in wormwood scrubs sharing a bunk with a man called Doris!

      • *sigh*

        Blowers, pleeeease … you really must update yourself.

        There is no longer such a phenomenon previously known as ‘male’. The ‘sexes’ are a socially constructed ‘reality’ to uphold an exploitative capitalist system based on the false ideology of sexist complementarity, misogyny and patriarchy. There are no men, nor women. Instead the ‘enlightened’ ones ‘realise’ there is a ‘continuum’ of ‘gender’ covering at least 57 varieties – just like the beans; and we know what beans do to one’s system.

        • Old Blowers

          SORTED!!! mais oui, mooan amy!

          • Grouchy Jack

            Who cares how homosexuals want to classify their relationships? Grumpy Jack just doesn’t see why he should buy a new dictionary.

            Avoir le cafard …. les mondee esty fouey.

          • Cream de monft … cream de monft

        • The Explorer

          57? Where did the other 5 come from? It’s getting like the ‘Kama Sutra’: Position 83 is just Position 82 with your fingers crossed.

          • Facebook …. and they should know … it may actually be 58 but this would have spoiled Jack’s joke about beans.

        • magnolia

          I was offered “male”, “female” and “other” several months ago on some site. I chose “other” just to send the system up. I suggest this is a valid protest, muddling up these ridiculously wrongheaded “researchers”. The word “research” used to mean something a lot more substantive, but has declined seriously.

          • Lol ….
            If you actually called someone “other” it would cause deep pain and hurt requiring healing – and financial compensation.

    • Old Blowers

      Economically with tories in we may eke out some sort of existence short of bankruptcy but morally we are heading along the road to perdition but we were always going to be shafted with whoever we voted as they all are progressive moral types (even allowing that UKIP said otherwise) so damned if you vote thisaway and damned if you vote thataway!!!

      • Except, individual morality and economic morality are interconnected. They support and reinforce one another. We’re heading for one hell of a crash too.

    • Groucho Marx again. “Those are my principles Sir; and if you don’t like them…….. I have others!”

    • Dominic Stockford

      Christian Concern gives every MP ‘good vote’ and ‘bad vote’ categories. The only one in the cabinet to vote on every issue in their list, and to consistently vote ‘good’ all the way through, is, and this may not surprise you, Pritti Patel…

  • I don’t know why anyone is surprised by antipathy towards Christians. It should be the normal state of affairs, and if it isn’t, it probably means that we aren’t preaching the Gospel properly. “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
    .
    It’s pretty obvious; if Christians want to be liked and accepted by the world, they need to become like the world: ‘For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.’ If they want to serve and follow their Saviour, they are going to run into opposition. Simples.
    If Jeb Bush is going to push the Gospel all the way through his Presidential campaign, then he’s going to lose very badly. Being the cynic that I am, I rather suspect that his aim is to butter up the ‘religious’ part of his Party, and he will have something very different for the other part.

    • Watchman

      I agree, Martin. But shouldn’t we also consider that if we are grafted into the root of Abraham then we should expect the mantle of persecution to fall on us as on them. We are adopted into the Jewish family.

  • Owl

    Excellent article YG, thank you.
    It’s sad that our two pet trolls, Linus and Sarky, don’t have a decent argument between them but, as usual, have a lot to say. Definitely material that Dave could use but totally useless for anything worthwhile.

  • Albert

    Excellent post Dr C. Sadly, the very freedoms liberals think they stand for will not survive the sidelining of Christianity, for those freedoms in the hands of liberals become strangely incoherent. If one thinks of a person who is oppressing other people’s freedom, one thinks either of a fundamentalist Muslim or a secular liberal.

    I was, however, amused by this comment:

    Our friends on the Left like to view themselves as the agents of change and reform, and you and I are supposed to just get with the program.

    I wonder if Mr Bush intended that as a quotation from a certain politician Dr C was encouraging us to vote for last week.

  • carl jacobs

    Hrmmm. The primaries must be coming. Like in seven or eight months. You know that spring is arriving when you see birds singing in your front lawn again. And you know the primaries are coming when a Republican presidential candidate make speech at a place like Liberty University. I long since gave up caring. Why? Because he is appealing to primary voters whom he will discard as soon as he wins the nomination. It’s a little ritual that Republican candidates must perform.

    If we Christians are the new lepers, it’s because we see the world in much different terms than our secularist counterparts. Down below, sarky calls us “haters and bigots.” By that he means that he subscribes to a completely antithetical anthropology. We exist in a world of created limits and boundaries. He exists in a world of self-creation and self-definition. Those two understandings are mutually exclusive. We say “Man is what God says he is.” He says “Man is what man says he is. HATER!” And that is the sum total of it.

    It’s the natural way of the world, really. We have lived for so long in a position of privilege. It’s no wonder the church is weak and frail. What is the cost of being a Christian? Well, we are soon going to find out.

    • Martin

      Carl

      And of course his god is his self and leads to self-destruction. The sinner is responsible for his ultimate destination, not God.

    • alternative_perspective

      Perhaps we sound shrill, because we are, at least to them.
      To appropriate Lewis’ analogy, we were like an fleet of ships sailing through time towards our destination. It is a long and perilous journey but we have been entrusted with a true and faithful compass.

      The problem is so many in our fleet have become tired of the relentless waves, the lack of land and constant submission to each other that they want to sail off. They long to be free from the constraints of travelling in formation; free from the constraints of orderly behaviour on board their ships and free to find lands to settle. The circumstance has grown so tiresome for them that the compass itself has become the bone of contention. It represents everything that they long to be free from. So we are not really talking about the fallibility of the compass but the opposition to their wills which it presents.

      And we, who remain faithful to the course and those of us who have discovered that this is the best way call to our friends, to our families and plead with them not to leave. We do so because we want to arrive together and share this distant promised land with them but our cries sound like commands. Our fears sound like warnings. Our longings become oppression and our faithfulness to the course; antagonistic to their wills.

    • >>>>It’s the natural way of the world, really. We have lived for so long in a position of privilege. It’s no wonder the church is weak and frail. What is the cost of being a Christian? Well, we are soon going to find out.<<<

      A brother from Pakistan said to me at a meeting a few years back ' If we are not going to be persecuted in the last days, the Bible has deceived us.' I don't think the Bible deceives us.

      Memorise Scripture and especially study Daniel. He who endures to the end will be saved.

      • Old Blowers

        Dear Fellow

        Christians are always persecuted even by supposedly there own in times past!

        This misquoted verse refers NOT to Christians but to Jews!! Antichrist is coming for them and the Lord will protect BELIEVING JEWS who recognise who this is persecuting them and their URGENT need to therefore repent and call for His aid. He returns to rescue them and destroy His enemies.

  • IanCad

    One speech does not a presidential nominee make.
    Pretty much a boilerplate performance.
    Expect the same from Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Paul, and even, Christie.
    Don’t overlook Bobby Jindal, from way down south.

    • bluedog

      But you would never get a speech like that from Obama or Cameron.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    The thing that makes me laugh about atheists is the way they describe themselves as “progressive”, as if disbelief is something they just invented. History shows otherwise. Atheism is as “old-fashioned” as religion. Even God’s chosen people went through bouts of denial, idolatry, and humanism. They all felt they were “progressive” and knew better than God. These episodes typically didn’t end well for them.

    Modern atheists think they have it all sewn up because of science. Science explains everything, and if you can’t see it, measure it, or wrap a mathematical theory around it, then it doesn’t exist. How narrow-minded is that? The problem for them is that some of these theories are starting to fall apart. Take “Big Bang”: the idea that everything suddenly appeared from nothing. Yeah, sure. Even scientists are now saying this doesn’t add up. Thanks to their own experiments at the LHC, and new evidence that the Universe has no beginning, Big Bang looks destined for the big bin. No doubt they’ll come up with something else, however shaky, as long as they can wave it around and claim it disproves the existence of God

    • avi barzel

      OT, but the Big Bang merely posits that our universe had a beginning at a specific location and a point in time. It’s a theory based on observable phenomena and can be modified or abandoned if new or condradicting information emerges. It does not and cannot address the question of God’s existence. Both theists and atheists draw support from the Big Bang…but neither argument is science, which is merely a methodology, a successful, but limited protocol for gathering and ordering information. Good, properly conducted science is not an enemy…nor a friend… of religion, or irreligion.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    The American evangelist Pat Robertson wrote in 1994 [The Collected Works of Pat Robertson, 257, quoted in Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents, 65] about ‘the part that Jewish intellectuals and media activists have played in the assault on Christianity’ and how ‘Christians have supported Jews in their dream of a national homeland. But American Jews invested great energy attacking these very allies.’

    MacDonald makes the point that, in proportion to their numbers, American Jews are greatly overrepresented in the media (including ownership and control), in politics, and in the universities, especially in the humanities and social sciences. His argument is that Jewish power and influence are used to undermine the traditional cultural supports of white societies, Christianity being one of those supports. The nineteenth century German Jew Heinrich Graetz wrote that ‘we must above all work to shatter Christianity’ [AS Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, 91, quoted in Separation and Its Discontents, 190].

    What we’re seeing in the United States and in Europe is the shattering of Christianity. Is it just a coincidence that, where Christianity is being shattered, there are large Jewish populations? I think not, and I would suggest that we look to Hugh Montefiore, the Jewish convert to Christianity, for the reason: ‘For a Jew to become a Christian is to go over to the enemy’. The shattering of Western Christianity is payback for what the Jews see as a thousand years of persecution by white Christians.

    • carl jacobs

      Oh for goodness sake.

      The International Jewish Conspiracy? Really? Did you have to bring your BNP bullshit onto this thread?

      The problem in the West isn’t Judaism. The problem in the West is the creeping agnosticism that has bled into self-worship. That’s the de facto religion in the West. It has nothing to do with Judaism.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ carl jacobs—Pat Robertson a member of the BNP? Kevin MacDonald as well? And Hugh Montefiore? I’ll go to the foot of our stairs.

        • carl jacobs

          Pat Robertson is an embarrassment. To cite him is to wreck your own credibility. And you are the BNP member to whom I referred. You are the one who said …

          Is it just a coincidence that, where Christianity is being shattered, there are large Jewish populations? I think not

          That’s an idiotic statement based on classic notions of nefarious conspiratorial Jews. The West is de-Christianizing because it has bought into the modern evolutionary view of existence. It no longer sees God as esential. It has rationalized its unbelief in order to achieve moral freedom and do what it wants. Good Grief. Just read this thread with Linus and his “inevitable triumph of reason” and “education kills superstition.” That’s the problem. Not some alleged over-representation of Jews in (say) the film industry. This is not a Jewish plot.

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ carl jacobs—This is not a Jewish plot

            The last words of the last Christian in the West, just before he’s beheaded. I’d advise you to wake up but I think you’re beyond help, carl. BTW, as I have stated so many times, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the BNP, because of fear of reprisals.

          • carl jacobs

            One might expect the Germans would be immune from this dynamic since … you know … they practically killed all the Jews in Germany. But, no. This dynamic is alive and well in Germany as well. How would that be? And how is it that the “white Christian” race (whatever that is) is so mentally and morally weak that it could allow the “traditional cultural supports of white societies” (whatever those are) to be undermined by handful of conspiring nefarious Jews?

            In the meantime I am wondering after this phrase:

            just before he’s beheaded.

            That just has to be a reference to Islam. Are you actually seriously suggesting that Islam in Europe is a Jewish plot?

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ carl jacobs—How would that be?
            If you have heard of the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism, you’ll know whose brainchildren they are.

            mentally and morally weak
            It isn’t a question of mental and moral weakness but of ethnocentricity. The white race is the least ethnocentric of all the races, the race with the least developed collective instinct. That makes cultural supports such as religion and marriage all the more important, and their loss all the more damaging.

            Are you actually seriously suggesting that Islam in Europe is a Jewish plot?
            The Jewish communities in both the US and Europe have long fought for Third World immigration. It is a matter of record. Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique quotes extensively from the immigration debates held in Congress and refers briefly to European countries. On pp viii-ix, MacDonald writes that ‘In the case of the reversal in US immigration policy, there simply were no other pressure groups that were pushing for liberalized, multi-racial immigration during the period under consideration (up to the enactment of the watershed immigration bill of 1965). Nor were there any other groups or intellectual movements besides the ones mentioned in [The Culture of Critique] that were developing images of the US as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society rather than a European civilization.’

          • carl jacobs

            If you have heard of the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism…

            When I see the phrase “Cultural Marxist” in a post, I generally do three things:

            1. Roll my eyes.
            2. Mentally replace the phrase “Cultural Marxist” with “the Illuminatti.”
            3. Flee from the Black Helicopters.

            The Jewish communities in both the US and Europe have long fought for Third World immigration.

            Immigration is driven by the need to make up for population decline. That isn’t the fault of nefarious Jews. Europeans decided to stop having kids all on their own. Currently its driven by a desire for national integration that depends upon open borders. That also isn’t the fault of nefarious Jews. It’s the desire of a political elite to establish Europe as a peer of the US and China.

            The white race is the least ethnocentric of all the races, the race with the least developed collective instinct. That makes cultural supports such as religion and marriage all the more important, and their loss all the more damaging.

            So … I should mock this because this kind of racialist nonsense doesn’t deserve to be legitimized by an actual response. But I am not sure it even requires mockery. I’ll just let the reader wonder what a “collective instinct” is.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I agree with Carl.

            I’m a Christian who is antecedently a Jew. I’d love to know how I am bringing about my own destruction…

          • avi barzel

            It was Car’s turn to throw out the trash today, I think. He’s in the shower now.

          • carl jacobs

            Yeah well … I wouldn’t get too comfortable if I was you. The Jews are still responsible for salted herring. Someone is going to have to answer for that.

          • avi barzel

            Yeah, well, except that I don’t see results. Pretty good read, but doesn’t look like Johnny bought one bit of your spiel. Is this how you wanna get your stuff to Hollywood? I pay for results, you know. Speaking of which, ever since I started paying you by the word, you’ve getting wordier. Not a big problem and I’m not accusing, just sayin’.

          • …. is my Jack’s cheque in the post?

          • avi barzel

            Soon, Jack, soon. Turfing Galloway blew our local office budget, Cameron broke our piggy bank and Carl thinks I own Chase Manhattan. Ok, I do, but you know what I mean.

          • Jolly good, Avi. Off -shore account in Mauritius, as per usual.

          • carl jacobs

            Since you are my henchman, I expect my 25%.

          • But of course ….

          • Mauritius? This year’s best tax haven is Mars.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh, so now you want results, do you. Suddenly “Mr Dominate the World” is worrying about productivity. But when I asked for credible henchmen to help me achieve those results, whom did you provide for me? The Three Jack-sketeers. Larry, Moe, and Grumpy. How am I supposed to keep on schedule with working conditions like this?

          • avi barzel

            Let’s get this straight, Carl. You may be getting the up-votes here, but in the end you’re just another talent in a cut-throat business. No one’s ever complained about Larry and the gang all these years, so ydon’t you start now. Btw, are sure about this Disqus privacy mode thing? Because if this ever gets out….

          • carl jacobs

            Disqus privacy thing? Uh oh.

          • … bet it was a Jew who invented the contraceptive pill.

          • Why do you buy such awful gobshite nonsense?

          • Robertson is an embarrassment but preaching at Jerry Falwell’s is not?

          • carl jacobs

            Well, you might think it should be embarrassing. But who are you that anyone should care what you think on the matter?

    • IanCad

      Christianity is nowhere being more shattered than in Iraq.
      Not too many Sons of Jacob left in that unhappy land.

      • avi barzel

        Less than dozen, methinks, but the fewer we are, the more nefarious and powerful we get. That’s the other theory. Goes with capitalist-communist, ultrareligious-atheist, meek-militaristic, pauper-tycoon Jews.

  • Mungling

    I’m not sure it’s as simple as saying that secular left hates Christianity. I doubt that the majority of people have an issue with the majority of Christianity. Most of the conflicts we currently see stem around sex: abortion, homosexuality, contraception (for some Christians) and sexual identity. Where Christians, even orthodox Christians such as Pope Francis (I wonder if I’ll draw flak for that) de-emphasize sex and emphasize other aspects of Christianity we see that they draw almost universal praise. Christian teaching on social justice is attractive — this blog has made that point many times — but when people are so angered by the Church’s views on sex that they can’t listen to anything else we find that it’s difficult to appreciate the parts of the Church that they would find to be beautiful.

    The sad thing is that the Church’s teachings on sex and sexuality are among the most beautiful and comprehensive reflection on sexuality that the world has to offer. Try reading the Theology of the Body (or its many commentaries) and I personally think that its difficult to imagine not seeing something to like. it flies in the face of the traditional stereotypes surrounding Christian views on sexuality (that it is repressive, or sex negative, or this or that).

    So, in terms of presenting Christianity in the public square, I think the key is to lead with those aspects of Christianity that we can universally agree upon, lead them to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and let them take care of the rest. The Church can and should speak about sex and sexuality, but be sensitive to the fact that it presents a serious stumbling block to non-believers and know how to speak about sex and sexuality in a manner reflective of our deep faith tradition.

    • Mungling

      On a related note, I didn’t speak about the Church’s theology because I also do not believe that the theology itself is a stumbling block. People may categorize it as ignorant, superstitious, or incorrect but I don’t think anyone in the secular left is interested in bullying Christians for their identification of Jesus as divine.

      • Hmmm … so when they refer to the “god delusion” and “fairy in the sky” they are showing respect?

        • Mungling

          Mocking, yes, but bullying, no. That’s why the more “progressive” sects of Christianity seem to be tolerated yet ignored.

          • carl jacobs

            The more “progressive” sects are ignored because they do not challenge (and in fact actually share) the basic presuppositions of modernity.

      • Dominic Stockford

        They do.

    • carl jacobs

      When Christians come into the public square, they bring with them their understandings of virtue. Natural man sees virtue in terms of protecting the self from others. But religions typically include notions of protecting others from the self, and that is where we get into trouble. Our notions of sexual virtue are all intended to restrict the self in service to others. Since the point of modern morality is to establish the sovereignty of the autonomous self, we can’t be well received.

    • Old Blowers

      I am reminded of a story regarding a ‘Modernist’/’Progressive’ vicar that received a call from a member of the church that her father had been diagnosed with an untreatable illness and had litle time to live.

      He duly went round to the mans home and found him in a pitiable state, close to death.

      He sat down beside him and offered words of support and comfort.

      He did what most vicars do at such a time and said “Lets get our Bible out and read what God wants you to know about suffering and His concern”

      The old man took out his bible and the vicar found it thread bare with hardly many chapters left therein.

      The vicar asked what had happened to his bible.

      The old man explained that the vicar knew he had been a regular churchgoer and had listened intently to what he had preached sermons on and that when the vicar had preached on certain passage and added “But of course we cannot take that literally that God meant that, he had torn out that section of the Bible..This had gone on for years until now the vicar was mortified that his self doubt expressed in sermons had led the man to believe his opinion superseded the Bible.

      This is where folly leads to”

      If we throw out one and continue on and on then we are left with nothing that means anything merely on a whim that it makes us feel uncomfortable.

      You may want us to do this but we cannot!

      • Mungling

        I actually don’t think we should throw out sexual morality. Like I said, I personally find it to be one of the most beautiful aspects of Christianity and even the cursory reading of the Theology of the Body shows how integral our concept of sex and sexuality is to our relationship with God.

        What I do question is whether it is wise to lead with that which will instantly repulse. If *all* people know about Christianity are the parts that they find objectionable, what’s to cause them to say take a deeper look? If, however, people mostly come into contact with the more attractive parts of the faith then they might be willing to take a deeper look at the Christian view on sex and sexuality even if they don’t like it at first blush.

        • Old Blowers

          But where do you stop?
          If not sexuality and it’s consequence towards wrong living then what about marriage,
          what about right from wrong,
          what about saying sin ain’t really all that bad so change the wording,
          what about divorce,
          what about aborting a child in the womb?

          We end up basing everything on a current emotion or viewpoint. The Christian ends up doubting even why Christianity maybe relevant if the God he believes in cannot get His facts straight to present to sinners as to not only what is wrong but how do we make it right.

          It becomes nothing more than a cafe shop menu that you can pick and choose from depending on your own preferences or specific weakness or desires you want to cherish.

          It’s either about Righteousness or Wrongness. Morality cannot be off the peg or made to pleasure. It’s all or nothing!!

        • Anton

          We don’t lead with sexual morality. When we are pro-active we preach the gospel. But when secular-driven changes to our laws governing sexual issues arise, we respond.

        • Linus

          I think you’re being a little naive.

          I’m the first to object to Christian sexual morality, which leaves gay people out in the cold entirely and facing a life sentence of unwanted and utterly pointless celibacy. But that not why I’m not a Christian.

          There are plenty of liberal interpretations of Christianity out there that are fine with gay sex. Some denominations even allow us to marry. But I’m not queuing up to join them either.

          Why? The problem isn’t sex, it’s your invisible god who, despite being omnipotent, can’t even manage a decent apparition to convince us he actually exists.

          That’s the key issue for Atheists, not who gets to sleep with whom. The arguments for God are so poor and so easily refuted that it’s impossible to believe in him based on an objective analysis of the evidence, precisely because there is none.

          If I became convinced of God’s existence then I would have to deal with Christian sexual morality in light of what would appear to me as a new reality. I’m not saying I’d like it. Indeed it would appear unfair and totally cruel to me, so I would have great trouble thinking of God as anything but a heartless and selfish dictator, so I’d probably still be damned because I certainly wouldn’t be able to love him. But I would acknowledge him. I would have no choice.

          At the moment the paucity of evidence for God prevents me from believing he’s anything more than a collective ego-projection. Whether you talk to me about sex or not, I won’t be changing that opinion any time soon unless new evidence comes to light that proves God’s existence beyond all reasonable doubt.

          • Linus, the Holy Spirit draws a Christian to God through his heart and not his head. You have to freely choose Christ because you love Him and not because you fear Him.

            “Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”

  • Dominic Stockford

    What should worry us in the UK is that a recent Christian (US) visitor to these shores said that they look at what is going on over here with concern, as it is the direction they are headed in – the ‘brave new world’ he said with sarcasm. If this (above) is what can be said of the US just imagine where we are, already.

    • sarky

      If it puts the wind up the yanks, we must be doing something right.

    • dannybhoy

      America is in all kinds of trouble. As the USA is the acknowledged leader of the free world, this should concern us all.

      • Anton

        As Harold MacMillan magnificently replied to Dulles when the latter goaded him by saying that Britain had lost an empire but not found a role, “Henceforth we shall be content to play Athens to Washington’s Rome”.

      • magnolia

        Yes, the “Patriot Act” is a very worrying document. I don’t know whether they or we are ahead in the race to lose civil liberties, as I cannot keep up with the pace of it.

        • dannybhoy

          From the blogs I read (and admittedly I have no way of judging their accuracy apart from cross checking) it appears the uncertainty around Obama’s background continues, his real vision for America, and his apparent antipathy towards the Constitution and Christianity.
          Both he and Hilary Clinton studied the teachings of Saul Alinsky, and Obama himself seems to have been strongly influenced by Frank Marshall, Bill Ayers and his minister Jeremiah Wright who teaches black theology..

  • Old Blowers

    Your Grace tweeted”Could someone please direct His Grace to the (redacted) Arachnid Epistles? Bless you.”

    Went there to check…Good Lord Almighty.
    1,437 documents!!

    Talk about PROLIFIC?

    That should take up the last remaining years of my life should I be bored enough to see what HRH Chuck is complaining about. Should take a leaf out of the wisdom of his Mother and just Carry on Serving subjects righteously and see what selfless unbiased duty looks like and why her boots are a tad massive for him to step into”

    • dannybhoy

      I don’t agree with you there Sir.
      Although generally in favour of the royal family, I do often wonder what the point of them is if they are unable to express an opinion or act as a conduit of concern on behalf of others.
      I am actually pleased that HRH Prince Charles takes an interest in our society and culture, that he speaks up on behalf of elements within the military etc.
      He gets to meet lots of people, has lots of interests and supports various charities.
      He uses his position to try and improve things for our country.

      Admirable.

      • Anton

        Quite so. When the Scottish referendum was taking place last autumn a spokesman for Her Majesty said that she was “above politics”. If she is above an issue as basic as the breakup of the Union then what is she not above?

        • dannybhoy

          Yes,
          I thought the same thing.

      • not a machine

        I thought they were interesting and considered .

        • dannybhoy

          Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
          Your best and clearest sentence yet!

    • Spiders write letters?

      • carl jacobs

        They are very literate Spiders.

        • Spinning yarns, probably, on the world wide web.

        • What do spiders eat in Paris?

          • carl jacobs

            French flies?

          • Lol ….

          • Why do spiders make good baseball players?

          • carl jacobs

            Because they like to catch fly balls?

          • Better than Jack’s version, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            So then … what very important general principle can we derive from this experience, Jack?

          • That you are up to date with children’s jokes …

          • carl jacobs

            That would not be a general principle, Jack. I think you should focus on the phrase “Better than Jack’s version.” What might that phrase convey in terms of a general principle?

          • Carl, Carl …only that you know more about American softball baseball. Jack’s version was “They catch flies.” The balls bit made Jack chuckle.

          • carl jacobs

            Tsk tsk. Being willfully obtuse does not help your cause.

          • Okay, okay, Jack admits defeat and agrees. As a general rule, he accepts you are more competent in the field of childish and unsubtle humour. There, he said it.

    • Talking of spiders, Blowers.
      Is it true that when your poor wife screamed: “There’s a spider on my head! There’s a spider on my head!”, You soothed with: “Stay still love. Ernsty will take care of it,” as you rolled up a newspaper…..around a wine bottle?

  • len

    Christians are salt and light the only ‘preservatives’ and’ illumination’ in a society and if we are to become ‘Christian outcasts’ I will wear that description with honour. ‘The wheel’ has indeed turned full circle.

  • avi barzel

    You have been verily outdoing yourself with your epistles to the communicants since the new blog platform, YG. Good, hearty breakfasts? Certainly can’t be inspirations from Disqus technology.

    • CliveM

      Is the blog now working on you phone properly?

      • avi barzel

        Gosh-darn it, yeah, all’s back to standard, familiar Disqus-weird again as of this morning! “Properly” is relative. Hey, are you involved? JavaScript-embed skills are as rare as unicorns, so I’d be intetested.

        • CliveM

          No not involved. Just knew you used a phone (I’m pretty much excluded from home IT!!) so wondered if things had resolved.

        • CliveM

          Ps how is your edit function working? My ability to edit seems to have been restricted to the first 2 lines of a post.

          • avi barzel

            Just a moment.

            Oinge de boinge, iggin de biggin-diggin, effle de beffle-teffle, ooh-aah! Oinge de boinge, iggin de biggin-diggin, effle de beffle-teffle, ooh-aah! Oinge de poinge, iggin de biggin-diggin, effle de beffle-teffle, ooh-aah!

          • avi barzel

            I see what you mean. If you’re on Adroid, you need to place the curser on the text and scroll down that way. There are three defined border areas to the comment field and one of them has error. I noticed you can’t paste after about the 6th line. I’d need to be on my laptop to run the source code while trying to see what’s up..but I’m a dabbler only and don’t know enough.

          • CliveM

            On my I Phone I don’t have a curser. You are meant to ‘pull’ the box down by finger, but this isn’t working.

          • avi barzel

            Hmm. The textbox size parameters are fixed at 380 x 59 pxls, so you wouldn’t be able to expand or pull down the box itself. Editability is on, with oveflow on auto (I’m on laptop looking at Elements, so the code for phones would be an auto “translation” of this junk. Methinks HG needs to flog his coder and keep him in the Tower cellars on stale bread and water until he fixes these device-view glitches).

            There must be a way for you to select the visible text, as if about copy, and move downwards. Last time I was on a Mac, it was with a Mac Plus with a 1 MB RAM and an external, arse-kicking, top the line 20 MB (sic.) hard drive. So, I don’t remember how I functioned without a R-click button! This stuff, though, is way above my pay grade; I only write and do pretty graphics and illustrations.

          • “Methinks HG needs to flog his coder and keep him in the Tower cellars on
            stale bread and water until he fixes these device-view glitches”

            His Grace has been trying (very, very hard) for the past fortnight (at great cost) to iron out these glitches. Sadly, all efforts to do so seem to result in further glitches.

          • avi barzel

            I hear you, Your Grace. Expect a private communication presently.

  • Anton

    People suppose that the differences between the secular experience in the last 200 years in Britain, the USA, Russia, France etc is due to different types of secularism. I suggest it is due to the differing forms of Christianity prevailing in these places before secularisation. Evidence that this is the real reason is that, as secularism continues, the differences between life in these places is gradually dwindling.

  • Anton

    David Cameron is bringing forward strong laws against “extremism” and religious hate. Until he has the guts to name the religion he (and we) obviously has in mind, these laws will be used against evangelical Christians. The Religion He Has In Mind is intrinsically political, unlike gospel Christianity, and its political facets advocate violence. Perhaps it could therefore be treated as a political movement?

  • magnolia

    Does the world need another Bush? It is one thing saying lots of cosy Christian-type things to these gatherings, and very much in their interests to do so, but I am at a loss to think of any laws friendly to Christians or their values that the last Bush passed into law, despite his proclamations.

    Instead they are known for the amount of dead and mutilated they leave in their wake worldwide. “Skull and bones” leaves a merciless mark upon these men and I would not trust them. It is all very well saying you are “born again”, but actually that covers a wide range of beliefs.

    Indeed although we should not be held accountable for the sins of our forefathers Prescott Bush was one dodgy Nazi-supporting guy.

    Why choose the Bush when you have a Paul to choose, albeit not the shining Ron Paul, the greater man of peace and libertarian in my opinion, but Rand Paul, rather more militaristic but not half as much so as the Bush tribe. They are patently genuine Christians, anyway, as their general demeanour and opinions and actions and auras shout out. Funnily enough genuine US Christians share the same “look” as genuine UK ones, though some don’t recognise it.

    • “Does the world need another Bush?”
      *chuckle*

      • Anton

        This Bush is not for burning.

        • Jack’s thoughts were less pure …. ask a Chinaman. (mea maxima culpa)

      • dannybhoy

        No.
        The last one was a disaster.

    • avi barzel

      For all his errors, George Bush left a safer, less lethal world…yes, even for the Iraqis and Afghanis. I can fill a book with complaints about the US and every single president of theirs, but in the end, the prosperity and security we’ve enjoyed is the result of the Pax Americana in it’s most effective form; the carrier battle groups patrolling the sea lanes, their planes and missiles within reach of every spot on Earth. That’s to put it bluntly. Witness how after six years of a “non-Bush,” the world is in a much worse shape. The Russkies are flexing their bare chests, China is grabbing islands, the Iranians are laughing their heads off and testing to see what they can get away with next and look at how well the Middle East is doing without those crude, imperialist American boots on the ground there.

      • magnolia

        I think the so-called Pax Americana is a disaster. Once upon a time I believed it. Not since the Iraq war. It depends on the supposition that there is no such thing as blowback, that your nation is exceptional (American exceptionalism), that hegemony is right (why?), that everyone else must bow to Washington, and obey its every diktat, and that it is OK to go on about global warming whilst blowing up vast oilfields (and none shall notice or comment). The Iraq war was about the petrodollar, not about 9/11. I am afraid 9/11 provided the excuse, as did the dodgy dossier. We will never forget here in the UK. I find very few people of any political colour at all who believe the nonsense we were fed,( indeed most did not at the time) or the Pax Americana.

        • avi barzel

          I’m familiar with those arguments. US hegemony and exceptionalism, blow-backs, 9/11 is not what it seems and so on. Oddly enough, few other actors and few other actions get this kind of close and cynical analysis and no one ever wants to present realistic alternatives. Except that now, under Obama and his famous “reset” we see how quickly the world situation is crapping out in serious terms. And, thanks to Congress and the bigger political establishment, his hands are mostly tied, which limits the already shocking damage.
          A thought experiment: Imagine the world a fortnight after a hypothetical US disengagement from this Vale of tears. What I see is South East Asia, Australia and NZ under the red flag of China; China and Russia duking it out with battlefield nuclears (if we are lucky) over Siberia. The sea lanes not controlled by either Russia, China or Iran or ChinaRussia pushing West to reclaim its old vassals, slave supply and markets. Islam, under rightful the leadership of Iran…As Obama would have it, pushing north through Turkey into a supine Europe well-armed with regulation size and weight sausages and quick to write lethal letters of complaint to the UN with 54 voting Muslim states. And all this just for starters.
          None of this means that we have to accept everything the US ladles out. But it means that our lives as they are depend on order, security and freedom of trade. And of all the alternative powers out there (actual powers, not wishes) the US is our best choice for world’s cop. By far. Being Canadian, I still wish you guys had managed to fix things up a bit and to hang on to the Empire (gasp!), but I guess the Yanks will have to do as the second best.

          • Anton

            We were forced to give up the Empire by the Americans after the war. Washington prioritised decolonialism over a US-British Empire anticommunist alliance that could have made world history very different.

          • bluedog

            The US was pressuring us to give up them Empire during the war too. Roosevelt had a special envoy, a Colonel Collins, in New Delhi whose specific task was to advise the Indian Congress Party on getting the British to quit. If this communicant had been the Viceroy, the good Colonel would have had an ‘accident’. Incredible to think that the US was actively undermining British India’s war effort against the Japanese.

          • Ivan M

            Roosevelt may yet turn out to be the unsung villian of WWII as the American isolationists have always maintained. According to Hoover,

            (http://researchteacher.com/freedom-betrayed-herbert-hoovers-secret-history-of-the-second-world-war-review-part-2/)

            it was pressure from the Americans that forced Chamberlain to give the guarantee to Poland. A guarantee that he knew in his heart that he could not fulfill.

            My exhibit A, as an Indian, for his villiany is the conversation between himself and Stalin regarding the future of India, and Indian agriculture as reported by Vladimir Bukovksy :

            http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/why-academics-hate-diana-west

            Roosevelt says it would be better not to mention India when talking to Churchill, because he, Roosevelt, knows that Churchill has no thoughts concerning India. Churchill plans to postpone the solution of this problem till the end of the war.

            Com[rade] Stalin says that India is a sore point for Churchill.

            Roosevelt agrees. However, he says, Britain will have to do something about India. He, Roosevelt, hopes to discuss the problem of India with Marshal Stalin one day. He finds the parliamentary system of government to be unsuitable for India and it would be better to create something like the Soviet system in India, beginning from the bottom rather than from the top. Perhaps, that would be the system of Soviets.

            Com. Stalin answers that to begin from the bottom would mean taking the revolutionary path. There are a lot of various nationalities and cultures in India. But there are no forces or groups capable of taking power in the country

            Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/why-academics-hate-diana-west#ixzz3aB6wASye
            Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

            One is overcome by a weird feeling. Here is Josef Stalin, possibly the closest lieutenant, the Devil had in this world, warning Roosevelt that collectivism would be difficult in India! The same Koba that implemented the forced collectivisation that cost the lives of millions in the Soviet Union. Just imagine the casual way our friend Roosevelt wished to visit Roosevelt says it would be better not to mention India when talking to Churchill, because he, Roosevelt, knows that Churchill has no thoughts concerning India. Churchill plans to postpone the solution of this problem till the end of the war.

            Com[rade] Stalin says that India is a sore point for Churchill.

            Roosevelt agrees. However, he says, Britain will have to do something about India. He, Roosevelt, hopes to discuss the problem of India with Marshal Stalin one day. He finds the parliamentary system of government to be unsuitable for India and it would be better to create something like the Soviet system in India, beginning from the bottom rather than from the top. Perhaps, that would be the system of Soviets.

            Com. Stalin answers that to begin from the bottom would mean taking the revolutionary path. There are a lot of various nationalities and cultures in India. But there are no forces or groups capable of taking power in the countr

            Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/why-academics-hate-diana-west#ixzz3aB6wASye

            Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

            Reading this gives one a weird feeling. Here is Josef Stalin, possibly the closest lieutenant the Devil had in this world, warning Roosevelt against collectivisation in India. The same Koba who had implemented the collectivisation of the Soviet Union that cost the lives of millions!

          • bluedog

            Interesting stuff, Ivan. It’s hard to know what to believe when these conspiracies break-cover, and I’m not sure that putting one’s trust in the Soviet state archives is prudent.

            One thing stands out, if Roosevelt really said that Churchill had ‘no thoughts concerning India’, that was a complete lie. Having served in India as a young man, Churchill would have had a very strong view about India and the British position in India. As the Cripps Offer was made in 1942, to suggest in 1944 or 1945 that Churchill had no thoughts was patently absurd. But then Roosevelt was a very sick man and may be his medication was causing him to fantasise or even show-off in front of Stalin. Doubtful too that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent of influence.

            A more likely explanation is that Roosevelt, like JFK, was a typical East-Coast liberal, brought up on a diet of US exceptionalism and the anti-imperialism that the US still indulges itself in. Like most on the Left, Roosevelt was undoubtedly convinced of his own moral superiority in all regards. Thus Roosevelt would have viewed the British Empire as both anachronistic and immoral, in the sense that its colonial or imperial rule was undemocratic. Further to this, as the war progressed it was clear on any objective assessment that Britain lacked the manpower and resources of either the US or USSR, and that these two rather than the British Empire were the key to defeating the Axis powers.

            Without question, the US was the diplomatic enemy of the British Empire and sought its demise, even when in an alliance with it.

          • Ivan M

            bluedog, it is quite possible that Churchill had ‘no thoughts on India’ that would not have been laughed at by Roosevelt, and thus saw no point in sharing it.

          • magnolia

            There is an old saying “where goeth the gold there goes the power.”

            The US made us give up gold and silver reserves as the price for defending the world (and us) , oh, and them, from Nazism. Well along with the Russians who lost the vastest numbers in WW2 by a very very long way.

            Now much world gold has gone to China.

            Lucky then that Christianity grows apace in China whilst apparently declining in the West.

          • magnolia

            I don’t see that. Look at “The Pentagon’s New Map” and the Wolfovitz Doctrine and it appears that the US may be often the villain itself. Why should it attempt to control other governments and decide their affiliations and boundaries? Isn’t their sovereignty to be respected within their own boundaries? Didn’t Putin actually have a reasonable point when at Sochi he protested against the unipolarity and the flouting of international law, and the abandonment of the old “checks and balances” that he perceived the US as involved in. How is hegemony good?

            The US has also been spying both upon its own citizens and upon its allies. Doesn’t go down well or build trust.

          • bluedog

            Once again, what is the alternative?

          • magnolia

            There are many better alternatives to pre-emptive wars aimed primarily at propping up the petrodollar at all costs. Innovation, world trade, diplomacy, international law? A bit of laissez faire foreign policy? Checks and balances, a ratcheting down of tensions for a change, a de-escalation of government worldwide?

          • bluedog

            There’s only ever one International Law and that’s the one created and enforced by the ruling hegemon. At no point within living memory, and for generations prior, has what passed for International Law been anything other than a Western construct based on Judeo-Christian precepts. You call for laissez-faire foreign policy. Fine, just look at what China is doing in the South China Sea on land reclaimed within the territorial waters of the Phillipines and Vietnam. The Chinese have now reclaimed 2000 acres and are building an airstrip and other military installations. The Chinese are positioning themselves to block the supply of food and raw materials to their Asian great power rival, Japan. Closer to home, what if the Russians took the Shetland Islands off a weak and ‘independent’ Scotland. Would that suit your appetite for laissez-faire?

          • magnolia

            That is a bit cynical, isn’t it? Ruling Hegemon was not the understanding the rest of the world has or wants with the US. Any country who wishes to be Ruling Hegemon and impose its will on all the world will end up- rightly- loathed and broke.

            I am not suggesting total laissez faire, but it is only just, and practical, not to meddle very much in the internal affairs of other countries. Look at the mess when the UK media went on and on about Pussy Riot, and it turns out that their history included attempting to instigate a public orgy in the Russian natural history museum, and other repulsive antics.

            Furthermore it seems likely that China’s action claiming land in the territorial waters of the Philippines and Vietnam might just be related to the US surrounding them with missiles pointed at them, as it has also done to Russia. It is a bit much to threaten someone militarily and then object when they try to protect themselves. What on earth do you expect if you poke other countries, and surround them with military bases and missiles, and fail to honour treaties and agreements that were made, on the grounds that you are Grand Hegemon? Most of Europe is quietly fed up with it.

          • bluedog

            No it’s not cynical, it’s reality. The US only became the undisputed hegemon because of the unconditional surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Then former ally the USSR challenged but went broke, ending the Cold War. Given that the US was a late starter in WW2 (remember WW1?) they clearly did not set out to be the sole global superpower, the Monroe Doctrine was always enough. Of course the Europeans hate the US and of course the EU is designed to replace US power in Europe. But it’s not going too well, is it?
            With respect, the entertaining antics of Pussy Riot are completely irrelevant to Anglo-Russian relations. The Russians would fully recognise this too.
            Your comments about China reflect a profound misunderstanding about how the Chinese seem to think ,and about relationships in SE Asia, particularly those between the China, US, the Phillipines and Vietnam. The Asians, excepting China, are not resentful of US power as Europeans always appear to be, although obviously the US-Phillipine relationship is coloured by the former colonial status of the latter, and in the case of Vietnam by the Vietnam War. Pragmatism rules and all nations bordering the South China Sea are deeply concerned by China’s flagrant disregard for the internationally recognised Law of the Sea. You may call China’s approach an example of innovative, laissez-faire diplomacy, but that would be an isolated position. China’s position is quite simple, they are a big country and the other nations are small and must bend to China’s will, irrespective of international law. You may care to research the Chinese concept of tributary states to increase your understanding. Be in no doubt, this is an extremely serious development, comparable to the Munich Crisis in 1938 and vastly under-reported, let alone understood in the UK press, as your own post attests.

          • bluedog

            Well said, Avi. The US is not perfect but the alternatives are truly horrific. The truth is that the West continues to enjoy global hegemony, as it has done under one Western empire or another for hundreds of years. But that estate is now being challenged by China in almost every field of endeavour. Islam is an intangible, peripheral and manageable threat compared to the material resources of the Chinese. We merely need the will to deal with Islam within the West.

        • dannybhoy

          Magnolia
          Like any powerful nation the USA put its priorities first. We did it with our empire. In recent years their foreign policy seemed obsessed with imposing American democracy on peoples who didn’t understand it or didn’t want it.
          I think given those caveats overall the Yanks did a pretty good job, and truth be told it has been a strong self confident America who kept the peace.
          America like us has lost or is losing its self belief, and in a way has been more affected by political correctness, equality and bloated overbearing government.

        • carl jacobs

          The Iraq war was about the petrodollar

          The Iraq War was about pre-empting the possibility of a nuclear-armed hegemon in the Middle east. And if that eventuality had ever had come to pass, the same Europeans who carp at the US about that war would have expected us to “deal with it.”

          I think the so-called Pax Americana is a disaster.

          That’s fine. If you asked most Americans, you would find we aren’t much interested in it anyways. I don’t want to play Globo-cop. I’m don’t want to fight Russia over Ukraine. I certainly don’t want to fight a war with China. And quite frankly I’m not much interested in defending Europe anymore either. I would personally favor a massive draw-down of forward-deployed US military personnel. There are a handful of countries with whom we should maintain an alliance. But the idea of maintaining global reach? Why? You should find that alarming. Because I am a realpolitick Hawk.

          Remember one thing, though. Back in the early days of Bush II, there were riots and protests and angry words in South Korea about “The US out of South Korea!” Right up until SecDef Rumsfeld started making noises about the US pulling out of Korea. Then there was much hemming and coughing and shuffling of the feet and politicians saying “Well, we really didn’t mean all that.” Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

      • IanCad

        I’m no booster for Iran but according to recent reports, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are making a pact.
        Bearing in mind that these two Sunni nations are the reincarnation of the old Turkish Caliphate – and that Sunni Pakistan has nukes – perhaps the Persians may, one day, be our best hope in that part of the world. It has a long history. Artaxerxes did, after all, give Ezra the go-ahead, and wherewithal, to build the Second Temple.

    • carl jacobs

      Libertarians must be kept far away from the levers of power. It’s like giving a loaded gun to a child.

      • IanCad

        Oh Dear! We’ve been here before – Several times.
        Later, later.

      • magnolia

        Instead, remove many civil liberties from the child, put him under house arrest playing computer games, make it that both his parents have to go out to work, give him an official person to report to in case his parents tell him to tidy his room, tell him the State is a better parent than either of his own, tell him his breathing and efforts to keep warm endanger the planet, that terrorists might blow him up because we are keeping him safe from a potential energy shortage by preserving the petrodollar by blowing up oilfields. If he gets out of the house to go on holiday make sure he is frisked embarrassingly at the airport because we have made enemies, and has a good dose of radiation. If he gets cancer later on as a result we can always irradiate him further.

        And when he goes to university give him loans that drive up the rents that private landlords can charge in the lucrative fields of university areas, and which he will take decades to pay back.

        Collectivism is working so well, yes?

        • Ivan M

          Ron Paul is a man of thoroughgoing integrity. The only Republican candidate in the last election that did not perform the Dance of the Seven Veils in from of Jewish interest groups. Thus he is verboten. It is very easy to surmise that should he sing a different tune on Israel, suddenly like lightning on a clear day, he becomes anointed as the last of the Goldwater Republicans.

          • magnolia

            Well, he calls himself a critical friend to Israel. I prefer critical friends to floppy groupies, but apparently some do not!

          • Ivan M

            And what proud groupies too!

  • How are the vast majority of Americans become lepers? Or do you mean your brand of mean-spirited evangelicalism?

    • carl jacobs

      Where ‘mean-spirited’ is defined as “Telling me that I am not my own moral authority.”

      • Carl, he’s a very well read ‘scholar’. A progressive Anglican priest living with his ‘partner’. Left the Catholic Church because Pope John Paul II refused to support a ‘Gay Pride Parade’ in Rome.

        • carl jacobs

          I see. That’s actually very helpful. Thanks for the information.

        • I make no mystery about it. And yes, Jack, you still talk bull.

        • You’re quite justified in not quite saying partner, Jack. We have to promise all sorts of things to the bishop, you know. And I left the Catholic church because it claims for itself a doctrinal and moral authority the church was not given, not because JPII refused to support a gay pride.

        • magnolia

          Well maybe the Pope should have allowed it, with the proviso that it had the first half of Marlowe’s “Dr Faustus” before it, and the last part after it, it only lasted 10 minutes, and they managed to do the full pageant of the 7 deadly sins within that. Some critics have always complained that the middle of the play is a bit empty and that would definitely fill it up satisfactorily, in dramatic terms at least.

          That is called harnessing talent. You have to think laterally!

          😉

  • not a machine

    I am somewhat late to an interesting post from your grace , some quite interesting comments to consider.
    Christians have become lepers ….I ponder if the poverty of such a situation is possible , there is a sort of poverty ,part theological in a new consensus of non belief and part being unsure within the possible fractures of demographic fears . However that said god exists and Christ and there is some difficulty in engagement , due perhaps (as YG says) its often perceived archaic nature .
    I don’t particularly fret over the church and service not only of for my fathers or its consistent referral to scripture , the sermons some see as needing to be modern and with current situations to break from a world and politics quite different from the bible , but then I think that approach has a whole new set of problems as interpretation can be lost .It is a comfort to some to be modern and on message as people appear to listen and the contradictions are less , that is a choice and I can see the church leaning towards , a re fresh but not really sure how it will work out in a perhaps more orthodox construct that cant help but become a place of God philosophy about whatever science can prove/convince is just a natural algorithm. The inhabitants of such a church will live a sort of healthy life , maybe with some fatalistic teaching or a place for the under 30s or youthful families wanting a perhaps more complete family church experience and house group .(I personally have some problems with this sort of church as they may be highly socially political sort of places and at ease with some things as per modernity).
    My problem with what I have outlined is not so much having to bin the hyms in favour of drum and base chants , but that the more serious aspects of a journey/relationship with Christ . in some ways as so many moderns like to tell me the physical church building is just a building and Christ always meant followers , often forgetting that sections of that church may well have been built and paid for by for fathers who also loved Christ , and the building blamers who are keen on setting being modern also , do a disservice , without much consideration as to why there is so little enquiry about Christ.
    The secular lobby whilst being powerful are somewhat ill fated as it will be rather obvious that there considerations around the truth , arnt really that considerate as to Christians accommodating secularism , they are a bit a pumped with destiny and intellectual supremacy in procuring the silver bullet to mystery , and the new possibilities of humankind once unshackled from guilt or repentance and perhaps shaking hands with new alien life .
    So the church of my for fathers may well be deemed leprous by a modern church rising forth and secular lobby having less of an axe to grind with the new church , the new bon amie of them in a strange agreement of the future and what a less offensive god will look like , warm , fuzzy with no commandments or perhaps sacrifice.
    Yet it would appear from the bible ,that Christ was about belief and anyone starting out on their Christian journey will perhaps be faced with a choice of whether faith is built as in the understanding of our for fathers , or something a bit more like a modular training course with moral outcomes .
    I am sure that many Christians will testify that it isn’t just an intellectual exercise , there is the encounter/company of the holy spirit ,and the building of faith to express the fullness of encountering Christ , which can only come from following and using the bible as resource , and the many examples from the church history .These fine matters and articles of the Christian faith are not just for the dedicated ,or college they are a way of being and even if our outward interactions as Christians become within the persciption/dictation of a law right secular society , the inner faith should be a matter of free assembly .
    I of course do not want to see Christianity bound by secularism and as yet I have no really heard a profound secular argument that defeats Christianity , but I have seen argument against Christianity much used in a political language without the more nuanced exchanges of the likes of some of our high learning bishops/cardinals who do believe in Christ and the building of the Christ character in humankind as having more meaning , than the intellectual argument of secularism .
    Leprosy is historically represented as disease where bits drop/fall off , the sores are bandaged and death comes with organ failure or infection, as with the care and perhaps the cure for leprosy , Christians played key roles through time .

  • Eh? I thought it was Chelsea Clinton who was going to get the nomination?

  • ABlivit

    “To tweet truth…..” That sums up the problem really. Christianity is a faith not a truth. Non-believers might be more tolerant if it was portrayed as such. It must have been easy to look up at the sky in wonder 2000 years ago and believe in a creator but we now know that there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy alone and that there are perhaps 100 billion galaxies in the universe so statistically at least one would end up the precise distance away from its sun to enable life as we know it!

    • scottspeig

      Even so, with so much stuff in the sky, one ought to wonder where it came from (aka God)

      • ABlivit

        A big bang? Plenty of evidence for that. V little of a God.

    • Martin

      ABlivit

      Christianity is Truth, a faith in the one who is true. Those you call non-believers are rebels against the God they know exists, who created all those galaxies and mankind on one planet prepared for them.

      • ABlivit

        You’re just wrong. I’m a non-believer and I don’t believe God exists, not for a moment. Let’s imagine he did – creating trillions of planets so he could send his only son down to one of them. Seems like a deeply disturbed individual to me and probably the last person/thing I’d want to worship!

        • Martin

          ABlivit

          You know God exists, you just pretend He doesn’t. That makes you a deeply disturbed individual, denying your creator.

          Remember, the Earth was created first for the purpose of providing a home for God’s Creation. All other planets & stars were created to display God’s glory to His Creation. Man, that summit of God’s Creation, fell and in order that some of His Creation might be saved God bore the punishment due to them

          • ABlivit

            Excuse me, but you don’t know me from Adam (pun intended), so don’t tell me what I know and don’t know. nor do you!! If I did know that God exists as you say then why on Earth would I pretend otherwise?? I am Irish but that would be taking the cliche too far.

          • Martin

            ABlivit

            You, like every other human, knows God exists. Or are you claiming to be unique among mankind?

            Why do you pretend otherwise; that you may be your own little god, that you may rule your life, that you may do as you please and not be beholden to another.

  • Firstly, yeah, being the state religion in the UK, and having seats in the House of Lords, yeah, that’s true leper status. Secondly, having read some of the selfish comments left by alleged Christians on http://archbishopcranmer.com/an-open-letter-from-a-disabled-christian-to-conservative-voters, I’m surprised Christianity isn’t more unpopular. (Fortunately, those horrible people bear no resemblance to the Christians I know in real life.)

  • What do you expect if your preach a Gospel of Fear & Prejudice – instead of Love & Truth! http://www.loveandtruth.co.uk

    • Martin

      There will never be peace in this World.