Phobia project2
Civil Liberties

Homophobia, Islamophobia and the triumph of ideological 'Truth'

 

Christianophobia has never really caught on. Perhaps it is a clumsy etymological construction: three syllables before ‘-ophobia’ is at least one phonetic unit too many, and it isn’t at all spoken trippingly on the tongue. Or perhaps it’s because the word is such a plainly fabricated concoction, designed to challenge the artifice of equality by asserting an identity, the sole purpose of which is to compete equally in the burgeoning hierarchy of rights. Or perhaps it’s because no one really believes that there exists in enlightened community either fear or hatred of Christians or the things that Christians believe in or do, which is undoubtedly the case with other phobias (though more often it is ignorance rather than fear; and disagreement rather than hate).

Charles Moore writes in the Telegraph about “a form of gay rights sharia”, which is censoring all debate and crushing all dissent from homosexual orthodoxy, to the extent that even homosexuals must conform to every precept of this immutable ‘Truth’, or risk being cast as ‘bigots’, ‘homophobes’, or, worse still, as suffering from the “internalised homophobia of gay people” which renders them traitors to their own kind. Thus one may no longer say that children are best brought up by their biological heterosexual and preferably-married parents, for to do so is an unacceptable prejudice. There is no tolerance of difference; no acceptance of diversity, even though, as Charles Moore observes:

Sensible people do not maintain this proposition rigidly: we can all think of excellent single parents, rotten double ones, outstanding fathers or mothers who turned out to be homosexual, loving stepfathers and stepmothers, wonderful adopters, kind aunts replacing unkind parents, posh people who got real love from their nannies rather than their own blood. Nevertheless, to think that a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman, preferably married to one another, are – other things being equal – the best parents, is common sense. It derives from an inherited knowledge of the complementary nature of the sexes, the need for security and burden-sharing, and the fact that blood is thicker than water. It could change a bit with circumstances – many argue that the formal marriage bit matters less nowadays – but the balance of proof lies with the conservative position.

Yet to voice such opinion in the contemporary context has inevitable consequences. Actually, merely to believe this is to risk ad hominem fallout and damaging career repercussions, as Moore affirms:

I am sure I would be barred from working in the public services if I said it at a job interview. I could not become a Labour parliamentary candidate, and probably not even a Conservative one. If I were 28 rather than 58, I doubt if I would dare say it in print if I wanted a successful career in media. Socially conservative moral views are now teetering on the edge of criminality, and are over the edge of disapproval by those who run modern Britain.

When the media narrative and political dialectic are controlled, how does one contend peacefully against moral coercion, or reason intelligently against an unjust oppression? Phrases like ‘Pink Mafia’, ‘Gayist’, ‘homosexualist’ or ‘Gaystapo’ have gained about as much vernacular traction as ‘Christianophobia’, invariably being met with the inevitable  ‘homophobe’ riposte, thereby depriving society of the means of distinguishing the extremist homoeroticist from the moderate gay in the village. When language is controlled, morality is policed. What is the homosexual equivalent of the Islamist? There isn’t one. Just as Islamism is nothing to do with true Islam, “gay rights sharia” is a world away from the moderate quest for LGBT equality and justice.

And yet the Islamist and the Homosexualist (unless you can think of a better term) are both concerned with gaining ground for the causes of Islamism and Homosexualism (unless you can think of a better term). They seek to occupy the public space, silencing nonconformity, converting inhabitants to their ideology and then declaring victory. There can be no retrenchment. And then they move on to the next annexation and the process starts over, until the whole world belongs to the Dar al-Ideology. The Islamist silences dissent by beheading the infidel, literally: the Homosexualist (unless you can think of a better term) silences dissent by ripping out the tongue, metaphorically. This is the nature of the radical’s pursuit of the extreme..

But does Charles Moore not appreciate that the phrase “gay rights sharia” is appallingly Islamophobic?

This is the theme taken up by Andrew Gilligan, also writing in the Telegraph. In a forensic dissection of two initiatives designed to encourage Muslims to participate in democracy (ie vote), he notes that YouElect and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), are nothing but “clever fronts to win political access and influence for Islamists holding extreme and anti-democratic views”.

But you can’t say that, because it’s Islamophobic.

It’s also doubtless Islamophobic to point out that the directors of YouElect and Mend have links with hate preachers, extremist clerics, Holocaust deniers, misogynists and apologists for terrorism. Actually, it’s probably Islamophobic to even to juxtapose the terms ‘hate’, ‘extremist’ or ‘terrorism’ with the love and peace of sharia. Jihadi John is “kind and gentle”, just like Jesus is meek and mild. Islam means peace, we are told. When it is spread all over Tower Hamlets, the target is the whole of London, and then Britain, and then Europe and the world. The Caliphate will better the ballot box with its pure prophetic guidance, and abrogate democracy by reinforcing the perfect precepts of Allah. Gilligan notes:

According to a training session for recruits, the IFE’s goal is “not simply to give da’wah [call to the faith]. Our goal is to create the True Believer, to then mobilise those believers into an organised force for change who will carry out da’wah, hisbah [enforcement of Islamic law] and jihad. This will lead to social change and iqamatud-Deen [an Islamic social, economic and political order]”. IFE’s “entryism” helped to install Lutfur Rahman as the Labour leader of Tower Hamlets council. He then gave them millions of pounds in grants. Mend also appears to have been funded by Tower Hamlets. Mr Rahman was expelled from the Labour Party, but re-elected as an independent, with IFE help. He represents Islamism’s closest ally in UK political office.

But for those who dare to criticise..

Mend and YouElect, along with the IFE, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Unite union and the TUC, on Saturday organised a “march against Islamophobia”, assembling outside that well-known media hotbed of hate, the BBC.

“Islamophobia”, one of Mend’s favourite charges, is a standard accusation made by Muslim wrongdoers to smear critics and deter scrutiny. No doubt this article will attract a similar response. But every time the charge is abused by the likes of Mend, it loses a bit more credibility and further damages the genuine victims of anti-Muslim prejudice.

And no doubt this blog post will attract the same response. Not since 1559 has there been an Act of Uniformity in England requiring everyone to assent to a particular worldview. It took more than 300 years to eradicate that. But now we see a new Act of Uniformity being imposed which elevates sexual orientation to a quasi-religion, and religious equality to the status of biological sexual identity. This is the new ideological ‘Truth’. It is secular pluralism and moral relativism imposed by cultural uniformity and political orthodoxy, if not by statute law. Resistance is not futile, but it is perilous in the extreme.

  • Dominic Stockford

    In Christ we are more than conquerors. Praise God.

    • Linus

      In Christ whatever happens to you – win, lose or draw – you’re always conquerors in your own heads because that’s what you’ve made the dogmatic decision to be. So it doesn’t matter what actually happens.

      Christians can read victory into the most ignominious of defeats, e.g. equal marriage, which in the UK was carried by a crushing majority, one of the biggest since the war. They can do this because they don’t care about reality, or rather they view their religious fantasies as every bit as real as reality and therefore claim victory based on a dogmatic premise that if God said it, it will come true eventually.

      This is what differentiates religion from the real world. It’s this ability to ignore real losses, defeats and reverses and confidently claim that no matter what happens today, tomorrow belongs to you.

      If the movie “Cabaret” is to be believed, that was also the refrain of the Hitler Youth movement. And indeed tomorrow did belong to them. For a brief moment. But as it does for all other religious or quasi-religious movements, the tide turned the following day. The most rigid of the zealots refused to believe it and those who survive are probably still hiding somewhere in South America believing the heirs of their Führer will rise again. But mostly they either died trying to defend their beliefs, or recanted them and cut their sails to the new prevailing wind.

      Go to any Nazi inspired website and you’ll find exactly the same sort of ecstatic rhetoric as you find here. The names and the tactics deemed acceptable change but the predictions of ultimate victory stay exactly the same.

      Reality can do nothing to alter this. Whatever laws have been passed and whatever profound social transformations have taken place, the Christian will always deny the reality before him and place his trust in a future where his victorious enemies will be crushed and he can gloat to his heart’s content.

      Hold on to that dream. It’s all you’ve got. Christians are annoying enough as it is. If we also had to scrape them off the pavement after they’d hurled themselves from tall buildings in despair at the shipwreck of their cause, then annoyance would turn to profound irritation. Your imaginary God (i.e. the tribal patriarchs who between them invented the religion) was wise to build an anti-suicide clause into the faith otherwise, as things are today, it would be raining Christians every time one set foot outdoors…

      • Dominic Stockford

        My quoting the Bible has really got you going, hasn’t it?

        • Linus

          That’s it. Quoting from your prototype of the Book of Jabberwocky has woken the devil that possesses me and caused

        • Linus

          That’s it. Quoting from your prototype of the Book of Jabberwocky has woken the devil that possesses me and caused it to stamp its foot.

          If it gives you pleasure to believe that, go right ahead. Common sense and logic can make no difference to a dogmatic point of view.

  • DanJ0

    I read Charles Moore’s article last night, and thought it pretty reasonable myself.

  • DanJ0

    Article: “They seek to occupy the public space, silencing nonconformity, converting inhabitants to their ideology and then declaring victory.”

    That path has been well trodden by Christians in our collective past. I’d like to think the hegemony has been broken and we won’t go there again but to be honest I’m not entirely sure.

    • The self-centredness of some is going too far, Danjo.

      When men like Dolce and Gabbana can see the intrinsic immorality and harm to children in the progress of homosexual rights and come out in favour of traditional family life, one knows the writing is on the wall, even if faintly at the moment.

      • DanJ0

        Try to hide behind the Roman Catholic Church and your puppet IDs all you like, Dodo. Your history of blatant and godless homophobia in 2010 and onwards is a matter of public record.

  • Dreadnaught

    Surely Christophobia or Chr-y-stophobia would be less bulky.

    • Inspector General

      Try ‘person of colour’. The traditional term of respect.

      • Dreadnaught

        You mean like in ‘curly black and kinky – mixed with yellow chinky add a litttle bit of red injun boy – what we need is a great big melting pot’. Ahh they don’t write songs like that anymore even if it was sung by a lady person of colour – wonder when the remix is coming out?

        • Inspector General

          Right on, young blood…

          “Ain’t no diff’rence ‘tween black or white
          Brothers, you know what I mean”

    • carl jacobs

      that Black people can’t be racist.

      Because racism is the combination of prejudice with power, and black people have no power and blah, blah, blah. Standard diversity agitprop.

      • Inspector General

        {raises clenched black fist}

    • Anton

      Every race should be ashamed of itself. Doesn’t the Bible say that?

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    The accusation of anti-Semitism has worked spectacularly well for the Jews so it’s no surprise that other minorities have followed suit with their own menacing little words, wonderfully effective at silencing opposition.

    Wonderfully effective against the guilt-ridden white community, that is, a community of seemingly inexhaustible tolerance and patience which any minority worth its salt can wrap around its little finger. One can hardly wait for the day when whites make the transition from hated majority to hated minority and Britain comes under new ownership. What larks.

    • dannybhoy

      Interesting that the Roman Empire insisted on loyalty and veneration of the Emperor, regardless of the gods or practices of its citizens.
      That’s the only way an empire or nation or indeed any group of disparate individuals can function, survive and flourish.
      All else results in degradation, confusion and chaos.

      ps. I am a white Englishman.
      I accept that my country has done bad things, but overall we have had a positive influence on the world,. That however imperfectly we have stood for freedom, justice and compassion.
      Guilt is only valuable if it leads to repentance and a new resolve to do better. Wallowing in guilt or allowing others to use it as a form of blackmail is positively unhealthy and unproductive.

      For Christians it leads to those peculiar little smiles I mentioned elsewhere..
      Can anyone imagine our Lord or Peter or Paul smiling like that??

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ dannybhoy—It’s Catch-22. If whites asserted their rights against the minorities, whites would be guilty of racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, etc. The white race is the most individualistic race, the least tribal race, and white societies are, thus, uniquely susceptible to destabilization by tribal minorities. That genetic inheritance of whites is bad enough but when you add to it the Christian exhortation to love the enemy, contemporary white Christian societies enter the fight with both hands tied behind their backs.

        • dannybhoy

          I’m not sure I agree with your analysis. Europeans didn’t conquer most of the world through a sense of guilt. Europeans like any other racial types have always had a sense of tribal belonging. One could say that people living in colder areas of the world have developed a different way of thinking to those in warmer climes.
          But in my understanding the greatest influence on European peoples has been Christianity. The countries which have most tried to implement Christian values developed a curiosity about the natural world, science and exploration.

          In a sense the British Isles benefitted both from the influence of Christianity and being surrounded by sea. This allowed for a more peaceful and gradual development, unlike our neighbours on the European mainland.
          One of the consequences of our relatively peaceful domestic development has been a general acceptance of basic fairness, justice and even politeness.
          Thus once the process of multiculturalism took hold we as the majority host nation were ‘conditioned’ to function in a highly developed social and economic structure. Our national character was to obey our elected leadership, to be polite and respect each other, with a tacit expectation that other citizens (apart from our criminal elements, the Irish and the Scots) would do the same.
          I think the impact of Islamic immigration has done more than anything else to challenge our not unreasonable complacency and expectations.
          At the moment we cling into the old “spirit of Dunkirk”, of pulling together and making the best of things. I suspect though that attitude is coming to an end, and we native Brits are realising that more than ever before our survival as a sovereign nation and way of life is under threat.

          Naturally our political leaders will want to keep a lid on things. Social unrest and disintegration is the last thing they need, but I think they will be forced to realise that the people, those who believe in Britishness and sovereignty are unwilling to give up their birthright quite so easily.

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ dannybhoy—Yes, whites have a tribal instinct, as evidenced by white flight. If the instinct were fully developed, though, Europe would still be a white continent; it would have been impossible to bring about Third World immigration and multiculturalism.

            Yes, pre-multicultural Europe had only the low-level guilt you would expect in a continent founded on a religion preaching guilt and salvation, but low-level guilt may not have been sufficient to quell white tribal instincts long enough for multiculturalism to become irreversible. Hence imperial guilt, slave trade guilt, Holocaust guilt, success guilt, and basic everyday white guilt. Put them all together and you’ve got a demoralized, guilt-ridden white community which, when its capital becomes minority English, can do no more than shrug its shoulders.

            Yes, Christianity has been tremendously beneficial but I’d argue that, of all the major religions, it is the one least fit to survive in a multicultural society because it lacks the killer instinct.

          • dannybhoy

            @ dannybhoy—Yes, whites have a tribal instinct, as evidenced by white flight.
            No, that’s because our political leadership has tried to make multiculturalism work by passing various laws. That resulted in making it practically illegal to articulate one’s concerns without being branded “racist!”
            So the only alternative was ‘white flight.’

            Put them all together and you’ve got a demoralized, guilt-ridden white community which, when its capital becomes minority English, can do no more than shrug its shoulders.

            I pretty much agree with that except to repeat what I said about guilt. Religion exploits man’s sense of guilt. God doesn’t want us to wallow in guilt but to confess and move on. I would agree that we Brits as a nation have been exploited by guilt, but personally I don’t buy into it. Not for slavery, not for acts of war, nothing.
            I can only feel guilt for what I have done, and by God’s grace confess and make amends if possible.

            Yes, Christianity has been tremendously beneficial but I’d argue that, of all the major religions, it is the one least fit to survive in a multicultural society because it lacks the killer instinct.

            I don’t think that’s true. Christians were slain by the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands during the Roman Empire, and we’re still here.

  • Anton

    Hi, I’m Anton and I’m a bigot. I believe in free speech.

    • William Lewis

      Free speech is vital. Particularly when it comes to combatting the accusations of prejudice from the Islamists and homosexualists (for want of a better word). We have examined their ideologies and found them wanting. It is a postjudice.

    • DanJ0

      I salute you.

      I don’t really understand why calling someone a racist or a homophobe or whatever somehow limits them or restricts their free speech. If someone hates queers or blacks or women or Jews or whatever then why not embrace that fact. They should simply say: I hate faggots, or niggers, or bitches, or kikes, or whatever. They shouldn’t try to wrap it up in intellectual arguments, or hide behind religion, or claim it’s all about demand for services. What’s the point? So what if one has visceral dislike, or irrational arguments, or prejudices? Let’s have that exchange and be done with it: “You’re a queer”, “Yes”; “You’re a homophobe”, “Yes”. Then look at each other with mutual contempt and walk away.

      • Inspector General

        Well, too coarse for society, those examples. But in your mischief making, you do raise a valid point. If those terms were freely in use, perhaps the sanctimonious, and that includes you, could restrict bellowing ‘homophobe’ and the rest to those individuals who use those words. However, one suspects you really wouldn’t want to do that all, as you would drastically reduce your area of operation, and that isn’t going to happen…

        • DanJ0

          “If those terms were freely in use, perhaps the sanctimonious, and that includes you, could restrict bellowing ‘homophobe’ and the rest to those individuals who use those words.”

          But they don’t, usually. That’s the point. They hide behind religion to justify their hatred of queers. Or find excuses not to employ niggers. And so on. However, over time their rhetoric or behaviour tends to reveal them. In particular, the intensity of it.

          • Inspector General

            Such is the power of homosexual derision of religion, even you have fallen for the trap that had this country not been Christianised, then the resulting heathens would have accepted homosexuality centuries ago.

            The Inspector is on record for suggesting that even in ancient Rome, homosexual activity was acceptable only amongst the aristocracy. He can find no evidence at all that it was extended to the plebeians. A parallel situation happened in England during medieval times. Venison was strictly off the menu to all but the ruling classes. In fact, he doubts at all that homosexuality as it is known now even existed, and had a similar standing in society as petty crime and opportunistic thieving. To wit, NO ONE identified as a homosexual.

          • DanJ0

            Me? I have no idea whether that is true or not.

          • Hi inspector

            “Venison was strictly off the menu to all but the ruling classes”

            Um…. never thought being gay was limited just to the aristocrats though….?

          • Inspector General

            Good Afternoon Hannah

            You need to take into account just how important the estate of marriage was for most of modern human history. A property union and strengthening of ties whose families intermarried. What is known as love between two people barely came into it in many cases.

            It would be no understatement to suggest that marriage was also your formal freeing from paternal influence and that you were propelled into the world as your own individual. With a wife to look after too.

            Thus, homosexuality if it happened could only be at best tolerated and certainly not encouraged. It must have had been on par with infidelity with another woman. Not celebrated.

          • DanJ0

            “You need to take into account just how important the estate of marriage was for most of modern human history. A property union and strengthening of ties whose families intermarried.”

            Well, quite. I’m tempted to copy and paste that further up into one of my own comments.

          • Inspector General

            By the way Hannah, one came across a rather wonderful synonym for the lesbian way dating from the Edwardian era. For use in polite society, of course. “The game of flats”.

          • Hi inspector

            Well, I do ride the other bus….

          • …. as opposed to a game of “back gammon”.

          • Inspector General

            As played by another favourite and more recent euphemism, a crafty butcher. The Inspector will allow the casual observer to work out the logic behind that one themselves. There is an Irish racehorse named ‘The Crafty Butcher’ too, one has found.

          • Recent?!

            “A fayre visaged manne was in the partee,
            Lipsed of voyse, and limpe of wriste eek.
            Ful wynsomme a crafty butcher was he,
            We played heide thee sausage and I could not sitte downe for a weeke.”

            (Chaucer, Prologue to the Canterbury Tales)

          • Inspector General

            Looks to be more like one of Mrs Proudie’s finest…

          • Inspector General

            Anyway, they do say it of meat mongers who like to receive their delivery round the back, usually when no one’s looking..

      • Anton

        But what happens if you don’t hate people but think that their behaviour, en masse, is not good for society? That is exactly what secularists think of Christians, and pretty much what Christians think of gays.

        • DanJ0

          Christians ought to think that of people who have sex outside of marriage too. Yet it’s rare to see the frequency and intensity on that as one sees towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Now, why is that?

          • DanJ0

            I’ll provide a partial answer to that myself: It’s because we’re a minority and because we’re Other. An easy target, in other words. In that we have something in common with Jews for those who cannot live and let live.

          • William Lewis

            Another partial answer is that there is no Stonewall for fornicators. Objections to fornication may, at worst, result in being called a prude. Objections to homosexual behaviour have resulted in jail or the sack.

          • DanJ0

            I expect discriminating against or harassing someone for having sex before marriage may also result in a case before an employment tribunal, unless they were employed as a minister I suppose.

          • William Lewis

            I doubt it. Fornication is not a protected characteristic.

          • DanJ0

            Actually, I think you are right on that now I think on it.

          • Phil R

            It is an easy sin for us to condemn.

            One of the few that we are not tempted by.

            So no no feelings of guilt or hypocrisy.

          • No; it’s because man, by nature, is sexual and wants the pleasure it brings. The lustful instinct also gets tied in with other failings that man wants to express – the desire for power, the desire to submit, etc. Just think of the full range of sexual deviancies there are. That’s why societies have to contain and control expression of this and not give it ‘rights’.. It’s also why the Christian model of marriage based on a proper understanding of love is the God given ideal.

          • Inspector General

            We’re waiting for a concerted campaign by fornicators and adulterers to get everybody engaged in or merely celebrating fornication and adultery. Oh yes, and to go into the classroom and instruct children similar including those who aren’t even old enough to know what else their pee holes are for…

          • Because it’s known to be wrong and people don’t wear being adulterers or fornicators as a badge of pride, Danjo.

          • sarky

            Do you not watch jeremy kyle?

          • Anton

            Blimey, who – gay, straight, Christian, secular – hasn’t got better things to do than watch Jeremy Kyle?

          • CliveM

            You’re right there.

            Frankly I view it as satanic.

          • DanJ0

            I can’t bear that show.

          • DanJ0

            I’m guessing you don’t get out much any more, Dodo.

          • CliveM

            It’s because an alarmingly high percentage of Christians preach better then they practice as far as that is concerned. Show me a muscular man, not interested. However a shapely woman with………………..

            Ahem, better move on. Suddenly feel all flushed.

            But I think you understand what I’m saying.

          • Anton

            Actually you are right that heterosexual promiscuity is far more damaging to society than homosexual promiscuity. But it is zealots for the latter who are the threat to free speech.

          • CliveM

            Is that why we in the Churches don’t make such a fuss as we do of homosexuality? I wonder.

          • DanJ0

            I suppose the problem is that our opinions are often very public these days because of social media and our opinions affect how our employers and colleagues view us. As someone said elsewhere, our jobs can be at risk if we express opinions in the workplace about protected characteristics like race or religion. However, I’m inclined to agree with the core of what you’re saying. If someone wants to express an opinion about race outside the workplace then we should defend their right to free speech from the zealots even if they describe (say) black people as niggers and want them “sent back to where they came from”. We can still express our contempt for the views whilst doing so.

      • What a gay comment.

        • DanJ0

          What a Dodo comment. Vintage 2011.

  • Anton

    Why does His Grace persist in drawing a distinction between Islam and Islamism? Has he not read the Quran?

  • carl jacobs

    The ferocious defense of normalizing homosexual behavior is, I think, a measure of the fundamental weakness of its case. Never forget that said normalization is derivative. It does not proceed from observations about the nature of homosexuality, since the only available observable is the desire to participate in it. The homosexual apologist may claim that he is merely obeying his nature, but he is also aware that “I am homosexual by nature because I say so” is a foundation of sand. The lack of any natural justification for the existence of (let alone acting upon) homosexual desire is a real and present danger to his case.

    It is not an accident that homosexual normalization is occurring now in the post-modern West. Objective notions of truth and morality have been abandoned as the New Secular Man has despaired of their existence. He has substituted autonomy in its place, and it is this shift that has enabled the normalization of homosexuality. As man comes to see himself as a self-created being, homosexual nature becomes the product of an act of self-creation. It is the right of autonomous man to self-create his own identity, and if a man chooses to identify himself as homosexual, then who are others to judge his decision? This is the truth behind “I am homosexual by nature because I say so.” It is not a passive acceptance of nature but an active assertion of man’s dominion over nature.

    But this is also the source of the fear. Homosexuality is not a fundamental characteristic like “male” or “female” that transcends worldview. The whole exercise of normalization depends upon the maintenance of a particular view of man and his place in the universe. It could be overturned in an (historical) instant if this enabling condition was to ever disappear. And that is why the homosexual apologist seeks to suppress any opposition to his cause. He seeks to secure his place by stigmatizing and publicly shaming those who refuse to accept this necessary precondition. That effort must of necessity focus on religion because it is religion that drives men to reject the assertion of autonomy upon which his case is based.

    But for all his effort, he can never achieve his objective. What he truly seeks is to overturn the created order and the implicit accusation that it levies against him. This is beyond his reach. If he cannot silence the accusation of creation, then perhaps he can silence its apostles. But no matter how firmly he places his boot on the throat of his adversary, he is always looking over his shoulder. Always fearful that the gains will be overthrown. And so he presses down even more firmly in order to assuage his fear.

    • Well written, Carl.

      • DanJ0

        Even though it’s fundamentally bollocks which follows directly from religious belief. As a homosexual, I have subjective experience of the fact. Moreover, I have no doubt I can objectively demonstrate a lack of sexual attraction to women. The basic and obvious weakness in all that up there is that it divorces the mind and brain from the rest of the body, and inextricably links one’s sexuality to one’s biological sex. That’s merely an assertion. Moreover, the desire to make that assertion comes directly from religious belief. The irony is that the religious belief encourages religionists to stigmatise and try to shame homosexuals to protect the assertion of it being a sin. It’s evil itself, in a way.

        • dannybhoy

          It’s biological Danj0. It’s the natural rection of the normal to the non normal. Homosexuals are very much a minority in any society. Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex and have babies with them. They make their own parents grandparents. Homosexuals are attracted to their own sex and can’t have babies and can’t bless their own parents with grandchildren.
          No major religion that I know of recognises an equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Homosexuality is recognised, not promoted.

          • DanJ0

            You think homosexuality is promoted? Interesting. I think we’re just getting what we’re due. What’s the point in promoting what others can’t have?

          • dannybhoy

            You read me wrong DanJ0. I meant that in connection with other religions it hasn’t been promoted.
            For example as far as I am aware, I can honestly say I don’t hate anybody. But that doesn’t mean I approve of everybody or their lifestyles, and I accept God’s ruling on all things whether adultery, pornography or the practice of homosexuality. More than that, I completely accept God’s judgments on me and my actions that contravene His law..

        • “Moreover, the desire to make that assertion comes directly from religious belief.”
          Does it? Strange that the binary nature of male and female, their complementarity and the morality underpinning marriage is, and has always been, consistent across diverse cultures and faith systems. That suggests something other than religionists stigmatising homosexuals is going on.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, who are you arguing with there? Do you think that I don’t agree that male/female duality is part of nature? What a weird argument. However, I take issue with the morality of marriage thing. Marriage is and was a social institution, and was far more contractual than moral for much of its history.

          • “Do you think that I don’t agree that male/female duality is part of nature?”

            You might, an influential group of ‘others’ do not.

            “Marriage is and was a social institution …”

            Well of course it’s a “social institution”. It’s the foundation of society.

            ” … and was far more contractual than moral for much of its history”

            Whatever the form it’s taken marriage between men and women has been the universal model for procreating and raising children – that is until the 21st century.

            As for the future, have a read of this agenda:

            http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

          • DanJ0

            “You might, an influential group of ‘others’ do not.”

            Name?

            “Whatever the form it’s taken marriage between men and women has been the universal model for procreating and raising children – that is until the 21st century.”

            A Dodo-esque segue from the morality underpinning it.

          • A morality written on the heart of man, Danjo. Science and evolution can’t explain it although people like Jung and Freud have tried.

            Nearly forgot – “Who?” you asked. Try this:

            http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

          • DanJ0

            You talk some rubbish at times, Dodo. Here’s your claim again: “the morality underpinning marriage is, and has always been, consistent across diverse cultures and faith systems”.

        • Martin

          DanJ0

          You have no “subjective experience of the fact of my homosexual orientation”, all you have is lust, the desire to gratify yourself. Biological sex is your sex, you are merely a silly person trying to justify your wickedness.

          • sarky

            And you are an even sillier person trying to be an ambassador for your non existent god.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Remember, I’m not the one pretending there is no God.

          • sarky

            So we’re back on this pretending malarkey are we?

          • Martin

            Sarky

            I’m not the one pretending, you are.

          • sarky

            Yawwwwwwn

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Remeber that post when you stand before God the Judge.

          • sarky

            I’m glad you said I’ll be standing not kneeling.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You may stand at arraignment, but you’ll kneel at sentence.

          • CliveM

            Well it’s good you’re trying to engage in a proper discussion!

          • Martin

            Clive

            I’m not sure it is possible to have a discussion with the dead in sin.

          • DanJ0

            You are correct with one thing in your nonsense: Yes, my biological sex is my sex. I am male and happy with it. I am also homosexual as my sexual orientation. So well done for at least seeing a bit of reality through your cultish haze. It’s a start.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            There is no such thing as ‘sexual orientation’, you are simply a sinner attempting to justify your sin.

  • Become a phobophobe.
    We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

  • Inspector General

    Anyone who wishes to experience Christophobia or Christianophobia or religiophobia need merely to log onto Pink News, and shower in the damn stuff. The very act of believing in a creator means you are an enemy to humanity, they will tell you. Seriously. You won’t be able to appreciate our hosts offering this fine Sunday unless you expose yourself to this mind-set.

    What is striking about the holders of these phobiae is that none of them are bigots. Oh no, that sacred word is theirs for the use of, not for the likes of anyone else. And should you try to appropriate the word yourself, they’ll be an almighty scrum and you may well find yourself kicked in the face as you go about it.

    The Inspector is off for his constitutional, but will return later to field questions, if any.

    Toodle pip !

    • carl jacobs

      Inspector

      The Inspector is off for his constitutional,

      Remember. You are only allowed three units.

  • Use the term Christophobia. This is what it is, and always has been, a fear and hate of receiving the message of the Christ.

  • Inspector General

    Addenda to one’s last post. PN has covered Charles Moore’s ‘outburst’. Can’t stop to read the comments just now…

  • Call all those who resist the message of Christ and spread moral disorder, in whatever sphere, ‘Diabloists’. A good old fashioned word covering the delusion of mind being spread.

    Definition:
    1. Dealings with or worship of the devil or demons.
    2. Devilish conduct or character.

    An adherent of Diabolism is a disciple who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of Satan.

    • sarky

      I like the sound of that! ‘Sarky the diabolist’, has a certain ring to it dont you think?

      • CliveM

        I can think of other descriptions, Sarky the …………. Oh never mind! :9)

    • DanJ0

  • len

    Christianity has the Truth it does not need to resort to ‘Orwellian newspeak’ to defend itself.

  • preacher

    All phobias are fears. Fear of the dark, or heights or Spiders etc. The list is endless. The generally accepted treatment for them is facing the fear & finding out that their is nothing to be fearful of. Although fear is useful for self preservation, irrational fear can blight a persons life.
    Fear is a tool that the devil uses on both believers & unbelievers alike.
    Many unbelievers are imprisoned by an irrational fear of possibly having to answer to judgement & their solution is to create an autonomous society where all are equal & none are judged.
    Regrettably they can become deaf to reason & blind to the truth.
    They need someone who cares to lead them out of the safety of their prison before they become institutionalised & incapable of escape.

    Equally, believers can be fearful of ridicule, loss of face or a host of other fears that stop them reaching out with the gospel that would set men free.
    It’s far safer to stand aloof, judge & condemn the lost, rather than providing the key for them to escape. We should remember that we All were sinners before Jesus set us free.

    • DanJ0

      “They need someone who cares to lead them out of the safety of their prison before they become institutionalised & incapable of escape.”

      A line I’ve used myself a number of times here in the past about religionists! Heh.

      • preacher

        Hey Danjo.
        Well they do say that great minds think alike. Apologies if I’ve nicked your line, not being into religion per se I probably didn’t see it or didn’t think it applied to me.

    • Martin

      Preacher

      Actually fear of the coming judgement is far from irrational.

      • preacher

        Totally agree Brother, their problem is that they believe they have all knowledge & all the answers, but their inner voice disagrees & as they refuse to accept the truth they are forced to live a lie which makes their position untenable & irrational when the answer is so easy & so available.

  • Homosexual ‘marriage’ isn’t the end-game of the alliance between the left, the radical feminists and the homosexualists. It’s one key objective of a far wider strategy to put in place a ‘post-marriage society’ with a range of ‘diverse families’ being given equal recognition, rights, and benefits to those given to heterosexual married couples.
    To date, the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage has been successfully advanced and now more will be made of the “love makes a family” argument and the stability it brings should be protected by the state. This idea can be applied to polygamous and polyamorous families. Think of the complexity of families when three or even four gay men and lesbians combine through artificial insemination to bear and raise children. The definition of marriage will continue to be expanded.
    You think HJ is exaggerating? Have a read of this:
    http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html
    This ‘manifesto’ was produced last year by LGBT and allied activists and scholars. “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.” calls for recognition of <“committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” The first Buddhist ‘marriage’ of three homosexual has already taken place in Thailand. More will follow.

    • This beyond marriage lot are a bunch of dangerously deluded left wing hippie dreamers. HJ.
      Diabolical indeed. God help us.

      • Mike Stallard

        Please reread the Communist Manifesto on the hypocrisy of marriage – it is all there.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Are Buddhist’s really in favour of such things?

  • Inspector General

    Gentlemen, PN has reported on the outrageous hounding of Farage and his children this day as they tried to eat lunch in a pub. Surprisingly, there is some sympathy for him from the sacred priestly caste who so contribute to the site’s comments, but remember, much of it is face in hand stuff as this over the top whatever will clearly backfire on the protesters and the public nuisances they espouse…

    • dannybhoy

      I heard that on the news, and what makes me cross is that some people try to paint UKIP as the loutish racist party..
      This incident is like something out of the 70’s flying pickets..

      • Inspector General

        Even our darling, Jane McQueen, is critical…

        This really is heavy stuff, and will last the week ahead…

        • dannybhoy

          The thing is too that even we who support UKIP know that it is still very much a party in the making, but UKIP has brought a real breath of democratic fresh air to the staleness and arrogance of the Westminster Bubble Club.
          They have come up with some really good ideas, pointed out alternatives to a safe and stultifying future in the EU Geriatric Society, and a return to common sense thinking.
          Nigel Farage is a national treasure.

  • Inspector General

    What sport we have there tonight. Several well known homo rats have arrived.

    Now, time to drag the sofa in here…

  • Inspector General

    Deep joy. They are at each others throats now!

    • CliveM

      Deep joy or deep throat?

      • *gasp*

        • CliveM

          Eh? Surely no gaspable!!!!!!

          • HJ has to Google “deep throat” ….

          • CliveM

            You must have watched the X Files? What other reference is their?

          • Inspector General

            Chaps, come to order. This is serious, you know.

          • CliveM

            Bows head sheepishly and slinks away……….!

          • Yes, Jack read it had something to do the bending of heads.

          • CliveM

            What’s that got to do with the X Files?

          • CliveM

            Ps had to google! Don’t believe that!

  • Inspector General

    To save Carl Jacobs the trouble…”Hot diggerty”…what!

    • carl jacobs

      Ummm… what? Or is this evidence that someone exceeded his three allowed units by (say) a factor of nine?

  • HJ
    A society that is embracing of polyandry, polygamy, polyamory,
    polysexuality, transexulity, transgender, and the rest on top of
    multiculturalism will not flourish and thrive but destroy itself. It
    wont work. How the hell does it organise and legislate for all that
    lot?

    It destroys our organised and civilised society and makes a mockery out
    of marriage which was created to stop all this mad confusion and to
    provide protection for rearing children in a stable environment so
    that we might flourish and thrive. We have male and female sexes for
    reproduction purposes otherwise why would nature bother?

    This bunch of backward looking misfits seem to want to take us back to the
    days of before any form of organised society had developed. They
    seem to have forgotten that it’s all been done before, their vision
    is not new at all. but they are too narrow minded and self-conceited
    to bother to see this.

    • David

      Well said Marie1797 !
      Such is their blindness, that they cannot see the social destruction that they are creating, or maybe that is their agenda ? Is their hatred for our formerly Christian based civilisation that great ? I fear it might be. Of course the thinkers and leaders of this movement are but few, and their many friends and supporters, the “useful idiots”, are far more numerous.
      The truth will out. Indeed it is beginning to creep forward now, and soon it will become an avalanche.

    • SimonToo

      Oh, those happy days when our society as a whole was defined more by “Polly put the kettle on” !

    • Watchman

      I would suggest it is more than that, and tied up in the mysteries of YHWH speaking creation into being:

      ” Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the person; and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and closed up the place from which he took it with flesh. The rib which A DONAI , God, had taken from the person, he made a woman- person; and he brought her to the man- person. The man- person said, “At last! This is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. She is to be called Woman [ Hebrew: ishah ], because she was taken out of Man [ Hebrew: ish ].” This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and stick with his wife, and they are to be one flesh.”

      Repeat ” they are to be one flesh”. The act of marriage between a man and a woman is divinely instituted at Creation and not merely an anthropological convenience. It is for this reason that no government can authorise same sex marriage: they have no authority to do so.

      • sarky

        Only works if you believe the creation story. Most people of sound mind don’t. Marriage is a man made construct and if we made it, we can change it.

        • Watchman

          As this is a Christian blog, and Jesus himself believed (was the author of, ie, he was the Word through which the world was created) then I can assume that anyone calling him or herself Christian will also believe the “creation story”. I also believe they are of sound mind. You may, here, be in a monority.

          • sarky

            Don’t kid yourself, there are alot of christians who don’t believe in a literal creation, and why would they?
            It’s obviously just an allegory.

          • Watchman

            Then they are not Christians!

          • sarky

            And who are you to say who is or isn’t a real christian?
            I have read articles by many christian authors who don’t believe in creation, they can quite easily reconcile their faith with science.

          • Watchman

            My authority is in God’s Word. It is made very clear who is entitled to call himself Christian.
            God gave us a science to work within: he set the boundaries of our science. To belive science rather than God’s Word is to make a fgod of science.

          • sarky

            Then science is the new god isn’t it??

          • Watchman

            Yes but it’s a false god. The limits of your science were set by the God that I worship, but people choose to worship it because it does not require the discipline of faith.

          • sarky

            There are no limits to science, that’s the beauty of it.

          • alternative_perspective

            Science cannot explain itself.

          • carl jacobs

            Materialist dogma isn’t science.

          • CliveM

            Yes I am.

          • Watchman

            How do you know?

          • sarky

            How do you?

          • Watchman

            Because i believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

          • sarky

            The literal word of god?

          • Watchman

            Yes

          • sarky

            Talking donkeys , snakes and bushes?

          • Watchman

            Yes, if my God can create life he control what He wants within that creation.

          • sarky

            Apart from cancer in children or ebola etc etc etc

          • Watchman

            “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not my ways,” says A DONAI . 9 “As high as the sky is above the earth are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55

            We cannot know everything sarky, only what He chooses to reveal to us. It’s called faith!

          • sarky

            Its called a cop out!

          • Watchman

            Never heard it called a cop out before. A cop out is where the certainty of lack of faith is excercised.

          • sarky

            Its avoiding the difficult questions. Why would god make a donkey talk and not stop cancer?
            Either he has a sick sense of humour or he doesn’t exist.

          • Watchman

            Man strives to be a god by wanting to know the answers to all the difficult questions. It’s a natural quest but a hopeless one. To me it would take more faith to believe that we are all here as a result of a scientific accident – now that is awesome!

          • sarky

            You’re right, it is awsome!

          • alternative_perspective

            Sarky, your stepping in to philosophical grounds you cannot win on and the only end result is insults and unpleasantness.

            “Either he has a sick sense of humour or he doesn’t exist.”

            This kind of comment is even less satisfying than: “We cannot know everything sarky, only what He chooses to reveal to us. It’s called faith!” (Personally that’s not my definition of faith, nor I believe, the Bible’s, but I can err to disagree).
            If you’re going to wade into this discussion you’re going to have to come back with more rigour than that feeble and false dilemma.
            But before I go there, you’ll remember hopefully my point about objective moral realms and truth. If you’re going to start damning God as sick, I demand you tell me by what moral definition atheism objectively differentiates between the rape and murder of a small baby and a new Alpha male entering a pride of lions. Explain to me without resorting to tiresome aphormisms why in atheism rape, murder or genocide is actually wrong?
            You give the mourning mother of a murdered babe hope… then I’ll listen to you on this question. Until you can offer something beyond “blind pitiless indifference” I reserve the right to ignore secular critiques of God’s morality.

          • dannybhoy

            Well said Sir.

          • Watchman

            Please grace us with your definition of faith. I’m tempted to copy and paste Hebrews 11, but I’m sure you can look it up for yourself. Perhaps you’ve some other biblical definition?

          • sarky

            Stepping into philosophical grounds? No I’m not, it’s a very very simple question. It’s you who has to shroud it in philosophy, because you know damn well that gods inaction is indefensible.
            With regards to the rest of your rant, like most xtians you confuse lack of belief with lack of morality. Its funny, I don’t know any atheists who rape babies, but I’ve heard of quite a few priests who do.
            As for giving a mourning mother hope. What possible hope could you give her? That she will meet her child again in heaven? Because I’m pretty sure the bible says that isn’t going to happen.

          • CliveM

            Where?

          • DanJ0

            “[…] I demand you tell me by what moral definition atheism objectively differentiates between the rape and murder of a small baby and a new Alpha male entering a pride of lions.”

            On the face of it, that looks like.you are begging the question there.

          • DanJ0

            The lion cub thing is interesting though. The lion is not self-aware so it is not a moral agent. Most observers want to step in to protect the cubs even though the understand the ‘reason’ behind the lion’s instincts. The wanting to step in is indicative, I’d say, and not just because of a mis-firing of our own instinct to protect our young.

          • chiefofsinners

            Here’s the thing with the donkey. The ‘dumb’ animal could see the truth but Balaam was blind to it.
            A really instructive story and a good contrast with Palm Sunday. Take a look. Numbers 22.

          • avi barzel

            Look at it from another angle. The consequences of a perfect body without diseases, accidents or death and an absence of consequence-based events and interactions would be eternal, trouble-free life on a planet of finite size with limited respurces and, consequently, a finite number of organisms . The result would be humans resembling vegetables, since there would be no need to do anything except ingest and expel nutrients. I may disagree with Watchman on theliteralist and Christian reading of Genesis, but his explanation and reference to Isaiah…as well as the internal consistency and integrity of the position are spot-on and not a cop-out.

            I think that the evidence for evolution and a time frame as understood by the sciences are overwhelming…but only to the point of presenting a higher probability. Given the uncertainties relating to thature of time and the empirically unfalsifiable paradigm of an omnipotent God, a literal interpretation of Creation is neither self-evidently wrong, nor stupid.

          • CliveM

            So out if curiosity do you believe when Jesus said “this is my body” he was handing over his flesh?

          • Watchman

            Given the Hebraic context of the Seder: yes and no, but not “yes” in the RC meaning of transubstantiation.

          • TimeForTea

            I think it would be very rash (and wrong) to say that you are not a Christian because you don’t believe in creation. Being a Christian is about taking the name of Christ. Christians who don’t believe in creation usually suffer from a poor understanding of chemistry, physics and biology opposed to thinking God is a liar though I would argue that is what their position of unbelief makes God.

          • Watchman

            I think I was probably a little rash. It comes from listening to the compromises that churches make in order to appease the world and attempt to be accepted for being “reasonable”. Daily we have to listen to watered down Christianity from apostates who pick and chose what they want to believe and revise the gospel according to what seems reasonable to them. We are not intended to understand everything but have faith in a God who has demonstrated His amazing love for mankind. He has given us His written word and some people have the affrontery to question its authority and authenticity. One day He will lose patience with us: immediately prior to the flood He said that His Spiirit would not always struggle with man. Jesus himself warned that before He came again it would be like the days of Noah. That time, it seems, is with us; with many who claim the redemptive power of His Blood but deny the power of an almighty God. Such are they that deny His Word.

          • CliveM

            You to talk rubbish. Believing that Genesis is allegorical does not make God a liar or suppose you believe God to be a liar. I believe in an ultimate creation, I just don’t think Genesis IS’s historical document. I do think it a devinely inspired allegory.

          • TimeForTea

            What’s the difference between an ultimate creation and the creation of the universe?

            What makes you think the creation account is allegorical? No one in the bible talk about creation being allegorical. Moses, Job, Isaiah and Christ all talk about God creating the earth and the heavens. It’s explicit in Exodus that man should rest on the sabbath in the fashion after Gid creating the earth in 6 days and resting on the 7th.

            At what point does Genesis stop becoming allegorical? Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Babel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph?

          • sarky

            It doesn’t! !!

          • TimeForTea

            Which is a satisfactory answer if you don’t believe any of the book.

            But if you do believe the bible to be the word of God, then on that particular issue of creation everyone after that first line of ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ is of the understanding that God literally created it in 6 days.

          • sarky

            Which is just ridiculous.

          • TimeForTea

            ‘There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation.’
            You say that I don’t understand evolution and have implied that you do. You say you have read and understood the creation account which is easy, one line in fact, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’ There’s a little bit in Job, Isaiah and a couple of other books but not that much.
            It seems to me that what you have done with the other theories is simply read and accepted them without actually interrogating them. Your answer to my points earlier is simply go and Google it. I’m not sure if that’s because you can’t interrogate the theories or haven’t picked which one is the most likely in your opinion.

            You haven’t seemingly taken the actual problem and tried to resolve it or found anyone who presents a particularly good theory on it. You’ve taken the end goal of ‘there is no God’ and looked to make the data fit.

            Instead of studying the theory of evolution which doesn’t in itself have an explanation for the origins of life but the origins of species, come at it from the angle of what is the problem i.e. How did life form? And look at how the problems might actually be resolved instead of how any given theory might explain that problem.

            To say something is ridiculous without being able to present any actual reason for it is hardly an argument for saying it doesn’t exist.

          • sarky

            A literal 6 day creation is ridiculous.
            How can you honestly think it can be anything but?

          • Phil R

            I believe that the Bible is the word of God

            But I don’t think the Bible teaches that the world was created in 6 days.

          • TimeForTea

            If your position is that all he had to do was breath the universe into existence then time frame is really quite irrelevant. My reference for a six day creation is from Exodus 20:11 ‘in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is…’

            I do believe we are supposed to understand it as being literally 6 days and it was. However, you do have to be careful about who’s clock you’re talking about. Space and time are intrinsically linked. Time is a physical property that varies with mass, acceleration, gravity and position. It is a perfectly rational position within the observable laws of physics for the universe to have been made in 13 billion years and 6 days.

            That time is a physical property bounded by mass, acceleration, gravity and position is also why I would propose that whether we like it or not, we all have an eternal soul. We are all made up of flesh and bone which has mass and is therefore subject to time. However, the real you, your thoughts, your feelings, your personality, your soul has no mass and is therefore not constrained by therefore by time which would make it like God, eternal.

          • Phil R

            I believe that the Bible is the word of God

            But I don’t think the Bible teaches us that the world was created in 6 days.We seem to always be led by atheists into this non Biblical blind alley.

          • TimeForTea

            I think that even if you don’t accept the Genesis account up to Gen 2:5 the problem you have is Exodus 20:11. It specifically says ‘In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all this in them is…’

          • Phil R

            It is not that I do not accept it.

            I don’t accept that the editor of Genesis was an idiot who could not see the inconsistencies between 1 and 2.

            I think the genre has been lost over time and Genesis 1 was a song (It even reads like a song with a sort of chorus) and history starts with 2.

            Whatever the case I see it time and time again we are backed into a corner defending Genesis 1.

            Accepting Genesis 1 is not essential to salvation and I think especially today, it is a big first step for non believers. Let them come to Christ then discuss the evidence for Genesis 1 being literally true.

          • TimeForTea

            I agree it’s not what salvation is based on.

            I believe the Holy Spirit wrote the books. 66 of them, penned by over 40 authors but one message.

            Pre-history is always difficult because none of us were there but I don’t believe that there are enough losses in translation to say that what is said in the KJV is misinterpreted at any point so as to lose the meaning completely. That’s certainly not my experience in my studies. In fact, I have found my position moved more and more towards much stricter interpretation of the scriptures as time has gone on. As I say, biblically it’s Exodus 20:11 that gives you the headache when it comes to allegorising the Genesis account of 6 days in my opinion.

            I’ve never felt backed into a corner over Genesis 1 though. Current scientific theories don’t stand up to much scrutiny and I always enjoy the debate. We are terribly ill informed and indoctrinated scientifically but there’s masses of resources online and in many excellent books for us all to stand on our own two feet. A little bit of knowledge and rational thinking goes a long way in this area but we all being a lot of baggage to the topic.

            I don’t think I’d ever worry about it with new christians either. It was this exact topic that started me on the route to Christ so thank goodness someone was talking about it to an unbeliever like me! Paul taught new christians about the second coming right from the off. Some were even worried about having missed it at the time! We should never have anything off the table to save for when people know Jesus a little bit better, He might come back sooner than we think and before we give the lesson otherwise!

          • Phil R

            I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I was concerned about the inconsistencies between Gen 1 and 2 then someone suggested that 1 might have been a song and then I could move forward

          • TimeForTea

            What inconsistencies? I always delight when I come across something I can’t initially explain, there’s usually a discovery lying behind it.

            Proverbs 25:2
            [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

          • Phil R

            It is the different order of creation between 1 and 2

            Hence the comment that either the editor of Genesis was an idiot or 1 was not the same genre

            To most Christians throughout the generations it has never been an issue. I don’t think we need to start finding issues now

          • CliveM

            The bible is full of allegory, parable, metaphor. The argument seems to be about what is allegory and what is historical. Some think when Jesus said”this is my body” he meant it literally, others think he meant it symbolically. Interestingly most of what is allegory isn’t proceeded by the statement “the following is allegory”. So the fact that the Genesis Creation story isn’t described anywhere as allegory is irrelevant.

            What do I mean by ultimate creation? I mean that I believe the Universe and all that’s in it was devinely ordained and moulded over billions of years. That animals came, went and evolved in accordance with this plan, until Humans came along.

            I don’t believe in Creation that happened over a six day period circa 6000 years ago. This I believe is allegorical.

          • TimeForTea

            I certainly agree that the bible is full of figures of speech and different types. The text is very multilayered particularly in its original form.

            Again I would agree that not all of them are noted as ‘this is a figure of speech’. That’s why I don’t choose the words of Watchman to say that I take the bible literally because people will then say things like ‘you believe God has feathers from the Psalms’, what I say is I take the Bible seriously. God says what He means and means what He says.

            I don’t think the problem with the creation account is in Genesis it’s in Exodus 20:11 where he explicitly says that the universe was created in 6 days as we understand days and that on the 7th He rested. I also refer to the point I made to sarky that you can quite easily have 13 billion years and 6 days because time is a physical property that can be manipulated and is variable. You have to ask who’s clock you’re talking about.

            I would argue that God specifically denies evolution in Genesis 1:21, 1:25, 6:20 and 7:14 where it’s stated that all beasts, fowl and plants yield ‘after their own kind’ i.e. Fish can’t reproduce anything other than fish and monkeys can’t reproduce anything other than monkeys etc.

          • alternative_perspective

            You can believe in Creation and even a literal interpretation without abandoning reason. There is more than enough diversity of thought and depth to look at the creation stories and derive a literalist interpretation without subscribing to a young Earth 6 day creation.
            Even creationists are not a black and white as the secular world would like to portray it.

          • sarky

            “You can believe in Creation and even a literal interpretation without abandoning reason.”

            Whaaaaaat????????? really????????

          • TimeForTea

            Why couldn’t you?

          • sarky

            Becsuse it goes against all the evidence. Geological, biological and every ‘ogical’ we have.

          • TimeForTea

            But it doesn’t. Take biology for example. Some pretty big unanswered questions currently are: The origin of life, how inanimate became animate. We don’t observe life being created randomly as is required under this system. If energy + matter = life then we should see it pop up all the time and given 14 billion years worth of time we should still see this happening now which we don’t. What actually creates life is matter + energy + information = life, and evolution can’t explain the origin of information.

            All life on Earth is the product of a previous one. Prominent evolutionists are currently acknowledging that it is more likely that life on Earth was seeded by material from out of space because they recognise that there is no chance that it formed on its own because of the lack of information. This is why we can’t create life in a lab. You have to get information from somewhere.

            DNA is in simple terms an error correcting code. That is a very complex machine, as any computer programmer will tell you. It requires design. Long time frames are the enemy of all of the above. Reversible reactions (the formation of amino acids and proteins which are the building blocks for life) tend towards equilibrium over time and only work in our bodies because of the complex mechanics of the ‘simple’ cell.

            Because of this error correcting nature of DNA we never observed biogenesis which is actually what evolution requires which is the changing of species from one to another.

            Then take mankind and animals. Palaeontology is littered with deliberate frauds and gross extrapolations (Peking Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man) and again we don’t see the evidence that we could change from monkeys to man. Time is the enemy of that change by the de-naturing of DNA. As we see with our increasing hereditary and chronic disease rates our DNA is becoming older and more frail not more improved. As for animals we know that radio carbon dating beyond a few thousand years again requires far too many assumptions to make a good case for the age of a thing. It has dated lab made coal at thousands of years old. There also seems to be a significant amount of circular reasoning when talking about fossils being X years old because of the rock layer their found in and rock layers being X years old because of the fossils found in them in my experience.

            Then anthropology. Mankind is inherently beautiful. The proportions of men and women are pleasing to the eye. There’s no reason for that to happen by evolution, for anything to be beautiful in fact.

            The complexity of life can never be explained by random chance. It goes far beyond what is mathematically absurd.

            Then take the universe. Start with the question how old is the universe. You’ve got on the one hand approx 13 billion years and on the other some 10,000 years. Both can be true and are quite easily reconcilable if you understand that time is a physical property dependent on the observer as well and mass acceleration and gravity. The main discovery of our universe this century is that it is finite. It is digital not analogue. The implication of this is that things happen in finite jumps and are not discreetly changed in time. There are a huge amount of assumptions used when dating universe and the earth for example like the constancy of the speed of light or that radiation cannot be affected by physical means the we know aren’t constant and yet use them as if they were.

            Another and final point worth mentioning is that just because a lot of people say something doesn’t make it true. Scientists hold very strong to things often in the face of all the contrary evidence. The earth being flat, the sun rotating around the earth, the constancy of the speed of light (in fact that light had a speed at all and wasn’t instantaneous). All those people who fist postulated they weren’t true were laughed out at the time. I would say the current scientific theories actually don’t stand up to modern scrutinise. The Big Bang theory was proposed over a hundred years ago. We’ve been through the steady state model, the oscillating model and are currently at the expansion model (which requires anti gravity forces that have never been observed and only occur for a fraction of a second before never being present again). All of which are unsatisfactory from a maths rival point of view.
            As for evolution and biogenesis another theory over 10 years old, the discovery of DNA should have been the death blow but for some reason we keep persisting with not confronting what is obvious because no one want to acknowledge the consequences.

          • sarky

            Mankind is inherently beautiful. The proportions of men and women are pleasing to the eye. There’s no reason for that to happen by evolution, for anything to be beautiful in fact.

            This paragraph shows your total ignorance with regards to evolution. You are a typical christian dismissing evolution without really understanding it.
            I really haven’t the time to go through your post point by point (Google your questions, you should find some answers).
            As an atheist I have read and understand the creation account. Perhaps you should do the with evolution before commenting.

            Your whole post can be summed up by this paragraph:-

          • TimeForTea

            What about evolution does that imply I don’t understand? That paragraph you’ve picked is merely an observation on how order does not come for disorder without work and information.

            Why would you think haven’t googled all of those points above and mentioned them? There are many different theories on how life formed but all of the biology ignores the chemistry and physics to get to it’s answers. You can’t find any satisfactory answers to any of those questions online.

          • Phil R

            Whaaaaaat????????? really????????

            You say

            then when asked why……

            silence……….

          • sarky

            Sorry working!!!

          • Phil R

            The point is that creationism is at least a reasonable response to the evidence we have at this point in time.

            Evolution is increasingly failing to be coherent the more evidence is produced

          • sarky

            Creation is not a reasonable response. Every branch of science has discounted it. Where is the evidence evolution is incoherent?

          • Phil R

            Sorry for the cut and paste

            Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of
            complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the
            Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the
            problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For
            details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do
            Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge
            Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial
            Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins”);

            The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology”);

            The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life”);

            Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of
            spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high
            selection coefficient;

            The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant
            — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under
            Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem”);

            The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life'”);

            The failure of developmental biology to explain why
            vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For
            details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution”);

            The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism”);

            A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by
            neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For
            details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does
            Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the
            Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);

            Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and
            abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art,
            religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

            I would add a few more like degregation of genome

            However, perhaps..

            The greatest objection is that most scientists start with the assumption that it is true and that evolution is taking place. They do not look for alternative mechanisms

          • sarky

            I have never said science has all the answers. ……..yet. However, in the absence of these answers ‘god did it’ is also not a satisfactory answer. The bible stopped looking for answers 2000 years ago, whereas, science never stops looking.

          • Phil R

            The evidence recently has generally been interpreted with one worldview in mind. That is evolution.

            It is like turning up at the scene of a crime. Then selectively looking at the evidence and fitting it to a particular individual.

            The problem is for evolution as a model is that the more evidence we gather the less it actually fits in with the theory.

            If you don’t like creation. Where the more data we have the more it supports a creation type event starting life, Then you will need a different model.

            Evolution is not giving you any new answers and increasingly does not fit the data we are discovering about our world.

          • sarky

            Sorry Phil but we are never going to agree on this.

          • avi barzel

            While I don’t hold to the literalist interpretation, it is potentially rational if one interprets days of creation not in conventional 24 hour periods, but as God’s “days” in a different time frame and natural law regime or framework. Even in literal terms, Creation is not impossible once you accept the central hypothesis of God, His omnipotence and hence his ability to manipulate time and natural laws at will. Not an unreasonable assumtion, given the fact that motion/speed and gravitational forces can alter time as per General Relativity and empirical evidence. Acceptance of evolution doesn’t make one smarter, nor does rejection make one stupid.

          • sarky

            Its accepting the central hypothesis of god that’s the problem. It’s funny but if you replace god with zeus or odin then the story just becomes another myth.

          • avi barzel

            You’re right on both counts. There is no empirical evidence, no earth-shattering, incontrovertible argument or “proof” of God’s existence or nature. All we have is traditions, beliefs and arguments. It sucks, but it’s how the religious paradigm works and you either accept it or not.

          • dannybhoy

            I’ve been having a profitable discussion with an American Christian who believes in evolution. I don’t personally accept evolution as an explanation as it seems to require a belief in some un named force ‘impelling’ it onwards into more complex forms or else waiting for the next genetic mutation that might prove ‘useful.’

          • DanJ0

            “I don’t personally accept evolution as an explanation, as it seems to require a belief in some un-named force ‘impelling’ it onwards into more complex forms”

            No, no, no, no.

          • dannybhoy

            You can’t just leave it there DanJ0. Explain.
            …in simple terms please.

          • dannybhoy
          • avi barzel

            Hm, bit of a straw man there, danny. Let me attempt another perspective. The “unnamed force” as you call it, is something God established, a force which permeates and holds the Universe together and veritably hits us over the head: Natural Law. This force guides evolution and natural selection which are components of Creation. The brilliance of this mechanism of Creation, Natural Law, is that it is meant to be comprehensible to us…at least in its workings…. through empirical observation and reason, and provides a point of contact and understanding between God and humankind.

          • dannybhoy

            Well as far as I am aware in B’Reshit it says “God done it”
            HOW God did it is another thing, but I don’t see evolutionists giving Him the credit in any way shape or form.
            Not only that, most evolutionists absolutely deny the establishment of any force by any power.
            To me it is far better to give God the glory for His creation and study and analyse it from that reference point, rather than create/worship another ‘god’ named evolution.

          • avi barzel

            That’s a separate issue. Un-scientific remarks, personal beliefs or speculations by scientists have no bearing on the science of evolution. Evolution theory can only scientifically work with evidence, and while one may hypothesize of a way to explain processes or even Existence without God, it is still a speculation without basis. If you accept that humans develop from zygotes into full-grown adults, you are accepting the existence of a process, not making a god of biology.

          • dannybhoy

            So if you’re a person of faith why not just give God the glory and say “He did it and I’m studying how.”?
            The generally accepted understanding of evolution is that God had nothing to do with it.
            But anyway, I accept the Creation account and I accept what scientists find out about Crestion.

          • avi barzel

            So if you’re a person of faith why not just give God the glory and say “He did it and I’m studying how.”?

            I’ve been saying this in every debate over this topic I’ve had here since day one. Alas, perhaps not as succinctly as you put it.

            I’ve explained that halakhic Judaism does not require a literalist interpretation of Genesis as some Christian denominations do. That accepted Jewish authorities at least from the Middle Ages understood the Creation account and its language as allegorical. That evidence and reason trump tradition, doctrine and philosophy in assessing Torah. That the authentic science of and evidence on evolution are separate from the beliefs of individual scientists and those who exploit science for ideological reasons. I cannot be responsible for what is “generally accepted,” for conflations or for gross misunderstandings of evolution theory, its claims and inherent limitations.

          • dannybhoy

            It’s the same as saying there can be no ultimate conflict between faith and science, seeing as the Almighty is amongst His other attributes, the Scientist supreme anyway.

            But the thing is that by my insisting that ‘God did it’, I can give Him praise and worship, and concentrate in knowing Him as much as is humanly possible this side of eternity.

            “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6:8

          • avi barzel

            I’m not sure, then, where the problem is. The vast universe and smallest nano particle are miraculous facets of God’s works. They reveal the mysteries of Creation and the laws of nature, which provide us with a tiny glimpse at the mind and nature of God…at least those parts He chose to reveal. Those we must discover using our senses and reason, while the primary purpose of the Torah is to teach us how to properly interact amongst ourselves and with the world and how to relate to God, His commandments and our covenant with Him.

          • dannybhoy

            I don’t have a problem.
            You don’t have a problem.
            Although it’s not inconceivable that we might one day have a problem!
            But to acknowledge there might be a power or personality behind nature poses a problem for many people, because they would have to come to terms with it.
            I think science really got going when men began to read the Scriptures more widely and realised that God ‘presents’ as a reasonable and reasoning God. So men began investigating the natural world as something that God had created.
            The problem of course was when they found things that seemed to contradict the Biblical account, and that came to a head with Darwin and co.
            The tension then arose as to how far we could ‘demyth’ the Scriptures without destroying their moral authority..

          • avi barzel

            Possibly, although I think science came about from much more materialistic reasons. The science behind hunting weapons, animal husbandry, agriculture, building and organizing cities, metallurgy and so on. Each implied that there is a right way to do things independent of belief or identity. This naturally led to transmission of accumulated information and involved understanding of cause and effect and application of theory. But because knowledge of God was mixed-in with mythology and because theology couldn’t solve scientific problems, or show consistent and predictable results, religion lost credibility. It was an understandable conclusion to draw when the parameters of science…its areas of applicability and its limitsi… were not probably understood.

            The problem I think that emerges from a loss of faith is not that disbelief or failure to wirship angers God, but that it eventually leads to our loss of the His “program.” Because God gave us wisdom beyond that of animals…the knowledge of good and evil, if you will…he had to impart “the plan” through teachings to us. These we had to store externally, in tradition and writing, and we have to effectivelly transmit them, but to do so we must maintain individual and social stability through the laws and ethics drummed-in to us for that purpose. If we lose them, everything craps out…including science. Hence the pickle we’re in now.

          • avi barzel

            PS: The reason atheism leads to things crapping out is that true atheism either doesn’t exist, or never lasts long enough…because it invariable leads to or submits to idolatry. And idolatry destroys everything; individuals, societies, ethics, art and science. Perhaps this is why the Torah is a manual on extinguishing idolatry and doesn’t even bother to mention atheism.

          • dannybhoy

            Okay,
            organised codified science.
            It really got going in the West because the West embraced Christian teaching built on Judaism.. 🙂

            “The problem I think that emerges from a loss of faith is not that disbelief or failure to wirship angers God, but that it eventually leads to our loss of the His “program”.

            I think you hit the nail on the head here habibi. This I think is the heart of the matter.
            In all seriousness God isn’t angry that we don’t worship Him. He doesn’t need our worship. I think if anything the Almighty shakes his head because He created us out of love and wants to fellowship or “walk in the garden with us in the cool of the day..” Alleluia!
            We are like the child who wants to find out the world for ourselves without asking Father for His wisdom and advice.
            Of course as a believer in Yeshua I believe that God came down as a man. To show us how to live, and how much God loves us by allowing Himself to be put to death by us so that He might then redeem us for Himself.
            I know you as a good Jew reject that idea, but for me I find it absolutely wonderful.

          • avi barzel

            Weird, got email notification of your response just now. Sorry …on road now and the noisy truck I borrowed is mangling the voice to text…

          • dannybhoy

            You’re a truck driver?!
            (Looks down nose and tuts disapprovingly..)

          • avi barzel

            Ha! You must be new around here…haven’t seem my old avatar with my 18-wheeler, 13-speed Volvo 780 with a custom sleeper? Wanna buy it? Getting out of the business and mostly renting to other drivers now. Back’s bugging me and clutch knee is starting to creak. Taking a load on the last snow roads north myself today….better than having some guy jacknife it across four lanes into a ditch. Took a 7 year sabbatical from graphic design and technical writing. You should try it, pure Zen and romance when behind the wheel on a Trans-Canada Highway longhaul…and you’ll really, literally not figuratively, look down your nose at the little “rolleskates” you call cars put-putting around you.

          • dannybhoy

            You have such a big family and circle of friends you need an eighteen wheeler to take them on a picnic?
            So what did you actually haul before you got lazy?
            Did you ever watch Ice Road Truckers?
            Have I asked you all this before??
            I’m getting old.I have a feeling we may have touched on all this before..
            God bless you Avi..

          • avi barzel

            No, never watched ice road show apart from a few brief youtube clips…done it, though, a few times as sub contractor and on the quiet as it’s a lucrative monopoly, overly regulated and dominated by jealous companies and shady types. It’s about the most boring driving you can do…usually at low speeds to avoid creating dangerous waves under the ice…with moments of sheer terror… and you usually have to team up with one or more drivers you can’t choose, often stupid types, which is not my thing. I prefer solo and if I need a co-driver, I like quiet, professional and politeTamil drivers. the money can be good, and crazy-good if you are in with the right people, which I’m not. The Elders of Zion were unable to pull strings for that one. Normally I transported household goods, people moving their entire house in one shot across the vountry or continent, but also food and other goods. Clients and contractors have to accept my stopping on shabbat for 25 hours and most are ok with it. Been allover N America, but prefer Canada, especially the North. I don’t think we ever chatted about trucking; you appeared with the new Cranmer site, when I was already getting out of trucking and back in design and writing. But I’m getting on too, so not much help there. We need young folks here to keep us old farts from repeating ourselves all the time. Blessings to you and yours too, Danny!

          • dannybhoy

            My wife and I love Ice Road Truckers and have watched it since it first hit the tv. screen here.
            I’d love the experience of the ice roads, to see the bears and the sheer wildness of Canada, but I would imagine it could become a bit monotonous.
            I can well imagine that driving for long periods would be come boring, although I love driving and have driven lots in Europe and Israel.
            Did you make a decent living at it? I was just a bit surprised that you did trucking as you are obviously a well read and intelligent man. That doesn’t often go with practical work like truck driving.
            Did I tell you I got through reading Leonard Cohen’s autobiography?

          • TimeForTea

            Why obviously just an allegory? In the book, I don’t think that there’s much evidence to say that Christ, any of the Patriarchs, the prophets, the Apostles thought that the Genesis account was allegorical?

        • Mike Stallard

          And also we can destroy it.
          I spend an awful lot of time dealing with the fall-out kiddies.
          Nobody consults them. And that was the point of the Telegraph article if you read it.

          • sarky

            There have always been fallout kiddies, standard marriage doesn’t guarantee the parents won’t be crap.

          • Mike Stallard

            It is quite obvious that you have not read the original article because Charles Moore makes this very point quite clearly. There is no guarantee. What there is left is sheer common sense. Gay people cannot produce children. So any children they have are adopted. This goes for all the other stuff as well. And, of course, for divorcees…
            Without respect and love, children develop quite normally as little monsters. How would you feel if you had a mum who was a liar and a dad who was no relation?
            Or two dads and no mum when you fell over?
            I have just watched Jeremy Kyle where a young man beat up his own mother and father (in a wheelchair) because he had been dumped as a “kid”.
            PS Schoolchildren don’t care about liberal democracy, you know. At our comp, a friend’s child was introduced to the girls’ toilet quite dramatically when they discovered his mum was a “Lezzie”.

          • Guest

            I’ll do you the favour of introducing your parents to each other should I ever happen to meet them.

            I don’t blame them for you, though. You make your own choices.

            And bigotry of that sort is learned behavior, Lord Greasy.

          • dannybhoy

            But we seek to attain to the ideal of good parenting surely! If a society puts personal fulfilment above our responsibilities as parents and citizens, the obvious result is more broken relationships and families.

          • Guest

            Yea, gotta make sure they have no hope ever, after all. Deal with em all.

            You really do fit the Tory Sterotype.

        • dannybhoy

          Marriage is a man made construct and if we made it, we can change it
          Absolute garbage Sarks.
          You remember I said you were a parasitical atheist? This is yet another example from a man who benefits from living in a society shaped by Christian values, whilst pretending that he and everyone else could function equally well in a society where we make up the rules to please ourselves.
          As Marie points out above..
          “This bunch of backward looking misfits seem to want to take us back to the days of before any form of organised society had developed.”

          Regardless of the form of ceremony, regardless of how much mutual love has played in it, marriage has been a universal feature of all societies. The bonding of a man and woman and the raising of children is the recognition of the biological/evolutionary reality.
          The more advanced the society, the more formal the ritual of marriage becomes.

          • sarky

            If those of us who believe in secularism are so parasitic, perhaps you should rethink the tax exemptions you get from us. Or is that parasitic relationship ok with you?

          • dannybhoy

            Again you miss the point.
            Try thinking a bit more.
            Human beings are social animals.
            In common with all living things we have a basic instinct to have sex and reproduce, so young are involved.
            What else do human beings want from life?
            Enough to eat,drink, shelter and safety.
            In a society the needs and desires of the individual must be balanced against the needs of the group.
            So how do we ensure the greatest possible degree of a personal freedom of expression, whilst ensuring the safety and continuity of the society as a whole?
            How do you do it Sarky?

          • sarky

            Not by marriage that’s for sure. Historically, if you look back at times when marriage was more common, we still had the same social problems we have now. The only way to improve society is to take the poor out of poverty. The answer to this is not marriage.

          • dannybhoy

            The point is that a society MUST HAVE RULES THAT ALL OBEY FOR THE GOOD OF ALL!
            I hope you will agree that no society can function or survive that places personal freedom and fulfilment over everything else?
            So the best compromise is that we have rules from which we all benefit, although perhaps not all in the same way or same time. So single people pay taxes that benefit married people with children because society needs children.
            Married people who have made a commitment to each other usually do a better job of raising happy well adjusted children than those who just copulate and knock ’em out like peas. The evidence is that children raised in a secure family unit with a mum and a dad do best.
            The only way to improve society is to take the poor out of poverty.
            That is plain stoopid! We know that the more broken family units there are, the more likely the numbers of single parent families struggling to raise their kids there are, the more people are likely to suffer depression and live solitary lives, turn to alcohol or whatever and be unfit for work. The numbers dependent on the welfare state grows, and where then Sarky, does the tax money come from to meet all the ongoing costs of your free ‘n easy society?
            It doesn’t work. Rules and laws are there for the greater benefit of the greatest number of people. That’s why we as Christians accept that God’s laws are there for our wellbeing, not to make life tough for ourselves.

        • alternative_perspective

          Sarky, was it necessary to throw that “sound mind” insult in there?
          I know plenty of Cambridge graduates, superb minds, who choose to believe in a young earth creation. I don’t, but I’d never dare call them of unsound mind because they’re frankly brilliant.
          May I also point out. That we on these Christian pages attempt to conduct ourselves robustly but respectfully. Secularists are always demanding Christians consider them as equally moral as others but its always the secularist who throws the first insult, sadly some Christians take the bait and wade in! So I will call you out on that one, if as a secularist you demand the same respect, you’ll also ge the same accountability. Such unpleasant snide remarks and not befitting of humanity.

          • sarky

            It wasn’t unpleasant and snide, just an observation.

    • “A society that is embracing of polyandry, polygamy, polyamory,
      polysexuality, transexulity, transgender, and the rest on top of
      multiculturalism will not flourish and thrive but destroy itself. It
      wont work. How the hell does it organise and legislate for all that
      lot?”

      By loving thy neighbour!

    • Guest

      Stalin said the same thing.

      • carl jacobs

        So I take it you are totally ignorant of the post-Revolution experience of abolishing marriage in the Soviet Union.

  • Blatant Ignorance.

  • My objection is to the misuse of the word phobia.
    A phobia is an irrational fear of something.
    My fear of Islam is, I believe, perfectly rational. It basic belief is that Islam should rule the world and that Sharia law should apply.
    I don’t have a phobia, I have a real fear of what is happening.

    • Guest

      You’re scared of your made-up fear. Right.

      Your own law that other religions need not apply…well…THAT’S different, of course.

    • Jeremy Poynton

      Someone coined the far more appropriate word “Islamonausea”. Regardless of May’s words today, which indicates some awakening to the threat it is to us all, she was still banging on about what a great thing Islam it is really. Yet it treats its women as second class citizens (the Left resolutely refuse to address this in their apparent adoration of Islam) and culturally, hasn’t produced anything of value for centuries. Where is Islam’s Bach? Where its Rembrandt? Where its Shakespeare. It seems to me to be a mediaeval totalitarian system which brings us nothing.

      • They can’t produce anything because according to ISIS all books should be destroyed as the Koran contains all the knowledge that man requires.
        Presumably there is a chapter on bomb making and head chopping.

        • Jeremy Poynton

          And fucking little girls.

  • Street preaching is now to be silenced. Christianity will soon be only allowed to be practised by consenting adults in private.

    http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/street-preacher-convicted/

  • len

    ‘British values’ what exactly are they …now.?.
    I knew what they were but those values have been discarded in favour of what exactly?.
    I suppose we have come off a solid foundation onto a sort of pseudo’ liberalism’ that is anything but’ liberal’ is that worth defending worth fighting for?.

  • len

    I suppose if you came across a political /religious movement which wanted to dominate the entire world and blew up or beheaded anyone who disagreed with that aim one could be concerned to the point of phobia about coming into contact with the devotees of said religion..

  • len

    I came across this article which I wondered if it might be of some interest to those thinking on embarking on Jihad.

    http://orientalreview.org/2015/03/04/an-isis-fighter-i-was-fodbidden-at-the-gates-of-heaven/

    • dannybhoy

      That’s an interesting one Len. There are lots of testimonies of Muslims coming to Christ from Islam. And of course non Muslims turning to Islam.
      The difference perhaps being that to leave Islam is punishable by death..